Separation of church and state

[Gaugingcatenate]

You're asking for public taxpayer funding to fund a christian plaque, so that you could put it in a public place. No, I will not be paying for you. If your little church group wants to make a plaque, pay for it yourself and hang it up in your church. Problem solved.

My little church group...lets see, one must be either blind of have zero reading comprehension not to understand after, what, perhaps being specifically informed 4 times that I have NO CHURCH, NO RELIGION, so obvious to most I would not have my own "little church group". The true wonder might be how many other people's heads have exploded "debating" with a person with a position this rabid? I know I would have to make a special trip to the hardware store to supplement my dwindling supply of duct tape for many more of these mostly inane exchanges.

Um, this is a democracy... you, little ol anti-faith zealot or not, cannot tell the rest of us what we will and will not do with our local tax dollars. So shuuuu, be off with you... I think the North Koreans would wave you on over if you really wanted to go somewhere your views might have a cozy little home.

Seriously? You literally just asked for my money to put up a plaque. Your memory isn't very good, is it?

Never asked for it, the city council voted on it then offered it up. Decided in a purely democratic fashion. You are going to go against the people and their will, you are going against the Constitution? Vote them out if you do not like their positions... recall them, thats how we do it here. Who the heck would one really have oneself pumped up to believe onself to be to think one can determine anything for everybody else in the nation...? King, Czar...Premier? Maybe should consider how to paca lil more of the rational/factual in order to have more reasonable debate positions.

It is about the money, and it's about the fact that the government should not be pushing one religion over the other. We live in a republic, where even the minorities have rights, and they have a right to a secular government.

So you agree with our rights to remove evolutionary origins from being taught in our public K-12 schools? Again, I will not deign to explain to you, as one would have to be either too dense or too obstinate to not to already understand the fact that the First Amendment is about the establishment of a State [national] church.

LOL, you're one of THOSE people! Of course you are, I should've already guessed it. Somehow science is a religion now, so your religion feels excluded.

Yeah, that's it. And that would make you one of those fewer OTHER TYPEs, lost in your cuddly "descended from rocks and gases" folk... while some, others perhaps, might consider that to be seemingly distinctly plausible...nahhh...

This is literally too stupid to answer.

I get it, over your head. Seems you like to ignore that which you do not like to answer. It's okay, perhaps some rock/gaseous DNA might not be equal to other rock/gaseous DNA, who would've ever guessed, huh...ha ha ha...

All I hear here is whining, but I'll repeat it anyway. No, I will not pay for your religious BS. If your church needs money take up a tide or something, you're not dipping into taxpayer funds to inserting yourself into publicly owned buildings.

Yes King Rabid...whatever you say King Rabid. Oh, and did I hear you say burn all copies of the Constitution, too? And...and....build big statues of Joe, that too? See, I knew it.

I don't really care what your religion is, or even if you have one. No religion has a right to take taxpayer funding and force it on the populace. The constitution applies to the states, not just the federal government. It is the federal government's job to enforce the constitution. You have a right to fair and speedy trial, and your state does not have a right to curtail that. A state government does not have the right constitutionally to support one religion over the other, plain and simple.

Blah blah blah... more of the same dribble. Show me that in the Constitution. Besides, your attention to detail is shown lacking once again. A local government is not the state government. I am telling ya, there really are poly sci 101 courses, I think for free, on the internet even.

As I've stated before, go take a look around and find the countries that have governments in bed with religion. Personally I find them to be pretty terrible places, but hey, maybe you'll find them delightful

I think you will find the ones in bed with atheism worse. Stalinist [ high five Joe ]Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea... I think the numbers are quite compelling... at least to those that willing to use their god given brains ... or, to be PC, perhaps those with the better rock/gaseous DNA...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

My little church group...lets see, one must be either blind of have zero reading comprehension not to understand after, what, perhaps being specifically informed 4 times that I have NO CHURCH, NO RELIGION, so obvious to most I would not have my own "little church group". The true wonder might be how many other people's heads have exploded "debating" with a person with a position this rabid? I know I would have to make a special trip to the hardware store to supplement my dwindling supply of duct tape for many more of these mostly inane exchanges.

Um, this is a democracy... you, little ol anti-faith zealot or not, cannot tell the rest of us what we will and will not do with our local tax dollars. So shuuuu, be off with you... I think the North Koreans would wave you on over if you really wanted to go somewhere your views might have a cozy little home.


Never asked for it, the city council voted on it then offered it up. Decided in a purely democratic fashion. You are going to go against the people and their will, you are going against the Constitution? Vote them out if you do not like their positions... recall them, thats how we do it here. Who the heck would one really have oneself pumped up to believe onself to be to think one can determine anything for everybody else in the nation...? King, Czar...Premier? Maybe should consider how to paca lil more of the rational/factual in order to have more reasonable debate positions.


So you agree with our rights to remove evolutionary origins from being taught in our public K-12 schools? Again, I will not deign to explain to you, as one would have to be either too dense or too obstinate to not to already understand the fact that the First Amendment is about the establishment of a State [national] church.


Yeah, that's it. And that would make you one of those fewer OTHER TYPEs, lost in your cuddly "descended from rocks and gases" folk... while some, others perhaps, might consider that to be seemingly distinctly plausible...nahhh...

I get it, over your head. Seems you like to ignore that which you do not like to answer. It's okay, perhaps some rock/gaseous DNA might not be equal to other rock/gaseous DNA, who would've ever guessed, huh...ha ha ha...




Yes King Rabid...whatever you say King Rabid. Oh, and did I hear you say burn all copies of the Constitution, too? And...and....build big statues of Joe, that too? See, I knew it.


Blah blah blah... more of the same dribble. Show me that in the Constitution. Besides, your attention to detail is shown lacking once again. A local government is not the state government. I am telling ya, there really are poly sci 101 courses, I think for free, on the internet even.

I think you will find the ones in bed with atheism worse. Stalinist [ high five Joe ]Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea... I think the numbers are quite compelling... at least to those that willing to use their god given brains ... or, to be PC, perhaps those with the better rock/gaseous DNA...

Ok, this "debate" has degraded into pure nonsense. You want christians to be able to use tax dollars to erect monuments on public property, a direct violation of the constitution, then continue in the same breathe to call me "King Rabid", a terrible fascist that hates the constitution. The supreme court has ruled in my favor on this over and over again, so stop acting like I'm the fringe lunatic of the two of us.

I think we're done here; you can go be mad by yourself while I enjoy living under a secular government. Good day.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Ok, this "debate" has degraded into pure nonsense. You want christians to be able to use tax dollars to erect monuments on public property, a direct violation of the constitution, then continue in the same breathe to call me "King Rabid", a terrible fascist that hates the constitution. The supreme court has ruled in my favor on this over and over again, so stop acting like I'm the fringe lunatic of the two of us.

I think we're done here; you can go be mad by yourself while I enjoy living under a secular government. Good day.

Fault? All of your making. You never had a solid argument and only used debate tactics, not evidence, logic, proof...using none of the things that actually tend to win debates.

To sum it up:

You sir, never gave one instance that proved anything you said in the Constitution. You seem to have little operational idea what a democracy is or how it is supposed to function, especially ours. You want to declare, without any basis whatsoever [ review any answer you gave that had any substance] that religions and religious people have not been a documented part of our heritage and history and should be accorded equal representation. You could not refute, did not even try in any manner consistent with debate, what the true meaning of "established" is. You could not refute that if a local government voting, by legally elected officials, to use funds that in some way benefited any form of religion that this would not automatically [ by some sort of magic?] give the religion benefited the status of becoming, suddenly, THE National Church. You only reiterated that you would not accept that. I ALSO, and this is feebly funny, NEVER EVER called you a fascist...in fact it was you that alluded to me as being fascist and whats more, would never tell my under what auspices why or what kind of fascist you were saying my position was. The Supreme Court, by the way, is constantly made up of only human beings... and are not gods [ you, almost robotically, would disbelieve them then, I would hazard] and they have made well documented terrible mistakes in the past [ Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Roe v Wade, etc...]... so your confidence is highly misplaced.

I would suggest the debate tactics utilized absolutely are fringe to what would be worthy debate...at least for a libertarian or a conservative.. If you consider yourself a liberal, well, that is how many generally "debate", still is not right or good debate form. Incessant staw men, hyperbole, demagoguery, dodging, feigned [ I hope ] forget-fullness....well, anyhow, good to set the record straight...and hopefully you will have a better evening. Ciao.

 

[hallam]

Ok, this "debate" has degraded into pure nonsense. You want christians to be able to use tax dollars to erect monuments on public property, a direct violation of the constitution, then continue in the same breathe to call me "King Rabid", a terrible fascist that hates the constitution. The supreme court has ruled in my favor on this over and over again, so stop acting like I'm the fringe lunatic of the two of us.

I think we're done here; you can go be mad by yourself while I enjoy living under a secular government. Good day.

Actually, having read this thread, your paraphrase is not what Gaug wants at all. He is saying that if a community of elected officials pick a religious monument to erect then they can do so without violating the 1st amendment.

You and 88 have actually been misquoting him and placing in your own assumptions into his argument. You added the only Christianity limitation. You added the 100 village scenario and then fail to realize that 8 of 2 means that the other religions are supporting the decision too invalidating the false argument of one religion hegemony.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Actually, having read this thread, your paraphrase is not what Gaug wants at all. He is saying that if a community of elected officials pick a religious monument to erect then they can do so without violating the 1st amendment.

You and 88 have actually been misquoting him and placing in your own assumptions into his argument. You added the only Christianity limitation. You added the 100 village scenario and then fail to realize that 8 of 2 means that the other religions are supporting the decision too invalidating the false argument of one religion hegemony.

Politicians picking their favorite religion and enforcing it is against the separation of church and state, plain and simple. The government can not take taxpayer funding to build monuments or make laws that enforce one religion over another.

I don't give a flying rat's ass what his religion is, the only thing I care about is his innate desire to infect our politics even further with that BS.

All of you would whine and cry if a local politician decided to spend your money on mosques and started pushing for shariah laws to be passed. It's only "democracy" when your religion is the one being pushed.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Politicians picking their favorite religion and enforcing it is against the separation of church and state, plain and simple. The government can not take taxpayer funding to build monuments or make laws that enforce one religion over another.

I don't give a flying rat's ass what his religion is, the only thing I care about is his innate desire to infect our politics even further with that BS.

All of you would whine and cry if a local politician decided to spend your money on mosques and started pushing for shariah laws to be passed. It's only "democracy" when your religion is the one being pushed.

The majority do not care one whit about your "flying rat's ass" ill formed opinion, we care about democracy. You are allowed your minority beliefs, however inane and insipid, that is guaranteed you under our Constitution. Your beliefs, however, cannot as a minority dictate what the majority can and cannot decide. You want to infect our politics with your silly BS, yet cannot argue with any logic as to why or how under the Constitution it would be constitutional... just the banal weepy whining of what you fear might occur under some senseless scenario you've invented. Waaaah wah wah.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The majority do not care one whit about your "flying rat's ass" ill formed opinion, we care about democracy. You are allowed your minority beliefs, however inane and insipid, that is guaranteed you under our Constitution. Your beliefs, however, cannot as a minority dictate what the majority can and cannot decide. You want to infect our politics with your silly BS, yet cannot argue with any logic as to why or how under the Constitution it would be constitutional... just the banal weepy whining of what you fear might occur under some senseless scenario you've invented. Waaaah wah wah.

Democracy does not mean the 51% can force their religion on the other 49%. Sorry bud, you'll just have to save your own pennies to buy your life size gold-plated jesus statue.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The majority do not care one whit about your "flying rat's ass" ill formed opinion, we care about democracy. You are allowed your minority beliefs, however inane and insipid, that is guaranteed you under our Constitution. Your beliefs, however, cannot as a minority dictate what the majority can and cannot decide. You want to infect our politics with your silly BS, yet cannot argue with any logic as to why or how under the Constitution it would be constitutional... just the banal weepy whining of what you fear might occur under some senseless scenario you've invented. Waaaah wah wah.

Likewise the majority cannot dictate what the minority can and cannot decide.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Likewise the majority cannot dictate what the minority can and cannot decide.

Too true...

Yes, only within the dictates of the law, because we, the majority, do get to make the rules. Anybody can do what they please, or what they are able of what they please...there may be consequences though...and certainly the rest of us are not in any way obligated to recognize what an outlier may or may not do, not in any formal manner... so we're good, we're cool, alls well that ends well. eace

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Too true...

Yes, only within the dictates of the law, because we, the majority, do get to make the rules. Anybody can do what they please, or what they are able of what they please...there may be consequences though...and certainly the rest of us are not in any way obligated to recognize what an outlier may or may not do, not in any formal manner... so we're good, we're cool, alls well that ends well. eace

Actually no the majority does not get to make the rules. We do not have a direct democracy, which is what you need to have for the majority to make the rules. That is where your mistake lies.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Democracy does not mean the 51% can force their religion on the other 49%. Sorry bud, you'll just have to save your own pennies to buy your life size gold-plated jesus statue.

Nahhh...thats okay. We, the majority, the electorate that elected the representatives of ours to decide as to what best to do... they fortunately, not you, will decide... but just in case I am sure they would welcome everyone to come on down to the board meeting room. Hey, maybe the art club even donated another one which the majority, maybe even 9 to one this time, would reimburse them, bless their historical yet secular good hearts. Ha ha ha ha ha...pretty sure they will save private viewings for those who really wanted to get their full money's worth out of it...

And I am sure the good folks would probably say, to those inane enough to raise a stink about it...sue us, court's right down the hallway there...cause that kinda narrowness of thought really just brooks no truck here in the good ole US of A.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Actually no the majority does not get to make the rules. We do not have a direct democracy, which is what you need to have for the majority to make the rules. That is where your mistake lies.

Mistake?

We are a republic, a representative democracy... the house and senate, no legislative or deliberative body that I am aware of, goes by minority rule. That would be more akin to the totalitarian, the authoritarian, the monarchical... wouldn't you agree?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Mistake?

We are a republic, a representative democracy... the house and senate, no legislative or deliberative body that I am aware of, goes by minority rule. That would be more akin to the totalitarian, the authoritarian, the monarchical... wouldn't you agree?

The majority can't harass the minority. You can't vote away the rights of black people even though they're a minority. There are limits to mob rule.

Nahhh...thats okay. We, the majority, the electorate that elected the representatives of ours to decide as to what best to do... they fortunately, not you, will decide... but just in case I am sure they would welcome everyone to come on down to the board meeting room. Hey, maybe the art club even donated another one which the majority, maybe even 9 to one this time, would reimburse them, bless their historical yet secular good hearts. Ha ha ha ha ha...pretty sure they will save private viewings for those who really wanted to get their full money's worth out of it...

And I am sure the good folks would probably say, to those inane enough to raise a stink about it...sue us, court's right down the hallway there...cause that kinda narrowness of thought really just brooks no truck here in the good ole US of A.

Ok, you keep crying. The rest of America will continue to appreciate living in a country where the separation of church and state is taken seriously. You should write an angry letter to the supreme court, maybe that'll make you feel better.

Cheers.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Mistake?

We are a republic, a representative democracy... the house and senate, no legislative or deliberative body that I am aware of, goes by minority rule. That would be more akin to the totalitarian, the authoritarian, the monarchical... wouldn't you agree?

I am not arguing for nor have I ever argued for minority rule. That would be another mistake of yours.

I am actually arguing for the Constitution where there isnt any majority or minority rule.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

:2brickwal

The majority can't harass the minority. You can't vote away the rights of black people even though they're a minority. There are limits to mob rule.

There is no harrassment, we make the rules, or through our elected representative we do...got a problem with that, there are other countries available and one can always vote with one's feet.

And you bring up a straw man attempting to use that as an unassailable. The scenario you bring up is never going to happen, nobody would want it to happen. But...I dare say if the majority really wanted something, the majority has the power. The ultimate power is the majority, those governing only get their consent from those they are governing... the majority is the real government, that is with and/or without a Constitution... whether you or I like it or not, that is just logic. Be it mob rule or not.



:beatdeadhorse

Ok, you keep crying. The rest of America will continue to appreciate living in a country where the separation of church and state is taken seriously. You should write an angry letter to the supreme court, maybe that'll make you feel better.

Cheers.

We have the good old 9th and 10th Amendments to rely upon, one doesn't even think of crying, but thanks for thinking of us kindly. Oh, I am sure they, the Supremes, will find out when/if they have gone too far. The majority can only take so much... funny, you still have yet to point out anything that makes your case in the Constitution... now I wonder why? I am sure mob rule appears about as many times as the concept of Church and state in the Constitution.

:yt

ZeeeEEEEEeeeeeeero.

Cheers is fine, I like Seinfeld better.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I am not arguing for nor have I ever argued for minority rule. That would be another mistake of yours.

I am actually arguing for the Constitution where there isnt any majority or minority rule.

Oh? And how is that? How is it that those who make our rules do so, how does one make the rules, the laws we live by? Sorry, I have yet to be wrong, by the way...or at least not that you have in any fashion proven even once... you say it but saying it hardly makes it so.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Oh? And how is that? How is it that those who make our rules do so, how does one make the rules, the laws we live by? Sorry, I have yet to be wrong, by the way...or at least not that you have in any fashion proven even once... you say it but saying it hardly makes it so.

I do not believe that you have a clue what I am talking about. SO therefor im not sure that I can provide evidence for something that you are talking about.

But back to what I was actually talking about, you should read the federalist papers. All the evidence needed to show that out system of Government isnt a majority rule is there (on a side note it also shows that we are not a minority rule either).


Since it is obvious that you are not going to make the effort I will do it for you.


The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.


if you read this and still think that the country is ran by the majority then my friend you are not a American.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS

 

[RabidAlpaca]

:2brickwal There is no harrassment, we make the rules, or through our elected representative we do...got a problem with that, there are other countries available and one can always vote with one's feet.

And you bring up a straw man attempting to use that as an unassailable. The scenario you bring up is never going to happen, nobody would want it to happen. But...I dare say if the majority really wanted something, the majority has the power. The ultimate power is the majority, those governing only get their consent from those they are governing... the majority is the real government, that is with and/or without a Constitution... whether you or I like it or not, that is just logic. Be it mob rule or not.



:beatdeadhorse We have the good old 9th and 10th Amendments to rely upon, one doesn't even think of crying, but thanks for thinking of us kindly. Oh, I am sure they, the Supremes, will find out when/if they have gone too far. The majority can only take so much... funny, you still have yet to point out anything that makes your case in the Constitution... now I wonder why? I am sure mob rule appears about as many times as the concept of Church and state in the Constitution.

:yt

ZeeeEEEEEeeeeeeero.

Cheers is fine, I like Seinfeld better.

Ok, you go sit in your rocking chair complaining to anyone who will listen about the "good ol' days" when you got to get free taxpayer funds for your statues. In the mean time the rest of the US will continue to enjoy living under a secular government.

Religion is on the decline, so unless you and your christian buddies take the government over by force, you won't be forcing jesus on any of us. If you don't like it, move to another country, this is America.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Ok, you go sit in your rocking chair complaining to anyone who will listen about the "good ol' days" when you got to get free taxpayer funds for your statues. In the mean time the rest of the US will continue to enjoy living under a secular government.

Wonder...

Ever wonder why, after all this time and effort, you have made no concerted effort to defend your viewpoint with the Constitution...I mean, was that not what the OP was all about... that Church and state are found nowhere in the Constitution? And yet you cannot even try...wise, as it is found nowhere and there is no established, read National, Church. You keep dragging out this shibboleth of Christians wanting to "build statues" to Jesus or some such nonsense... I am thinking some here might want to build their own statue of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, being that they almost worship the straw man.

Religion is on the decline, so unless you and your christian buddies take the government over by force, you won't be forcing jesus on any of us. If you don't like it, move to another country, this is America.

Oh, I wouldn't get my hopes up...last time I looked people readily admitted to being in the various Christian denominations at the 72 plus percentiles, with those who believe/worship some form of higher guiding power to be another 10 -13 percentage points...

And you see, this is more OUR, the faithful's country...atheists may have existed, peacefully for the most part, but mostly a sidelined bunch of hangers on to those who thought of, formed the foundations, fought for and built this country. Now, if you don't like it, maybe it is more you who should take your own advice, vote with your feet...looks like you are out of here physically anyhow, certainly not in tune mentally with most the rest. The minority controlling is almost never a good thing.

So you just keep plugging away... I am sure the astounding arguments made here have convinced a plethora of those already convinced, but I would suggest might only pick up the very dregs of anyone else...no offense out there...

Oh, just as a reminder, 82-85% is well beyond a super-majority...eace

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Wonder...

Ever wonder why, after all this time and effort, you have made no concerted effort to defend your viewpoint with the Constitution...I mean, was that not what the OP was all about... that Church and state are found nowhere in the Constitution? And yet you cannot even try...wise, as it is found nowhere and there is no established, read National, Church. You keep dragging out this shibboleth of Christians wanting to "build statues" to Jesus or some such nonsense... I am thinking some here might want to build their own statue of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, being that they almost worship the straw man.

Oh, I wouldn't get my hopes up...last time I looked people readily admitted to being in the various Christian denominations at the 72 plus percentiles, with those who believe/worship some form of higher guiding power to be another 10 -13 percentage points...

And you see, this is more OUR, the faithful's country...atheists may have existed, peacefully for the most part, but mostly a sidelined bunch of hangers on to those who thought of, formed the foundations, fought for and built this country. Now, if you don't like it, maybe it is more you who should take your own advice, vote with your feet...looks like you are out of here physically anyhow, certainly not in tune mentally with most the rest. The minority controlling is almost never a good thing.

So you just keep plugging away... I am sure the astounding arguments made here have convinced a plethora of those already convinced, but I would suggest might only pick up the very dregs of anyone else...no offense out there...

Oh, just as a reminder, 82-85% is well beyond a super-majority...eace

Luckily I don't really have to defend my side, as about a million court cases over the past few decades have done it for me. Separation of church and state does not only apply to a national church, especially considering those two words were never used together in the wording of it.

But hey, good luck on your struggle to make the US government a christian one. You certainly have an uphill battle.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Luckily I don't really have to defend my side, as about a million court cases over the past few decades have done it for me. Separation of church and state does not only apply to a national church, especially considering those two words were never used together in the wording of it.

But hey, good luck on your struggle to make the US government a christian one. You certainly have an uphill battle.

Sir, study your history, look it up in the dictionary, look at my previous posts where I did all the work for you...established = National Church. Has meant and does still. To think otherwise is just so much silliness. Your use of court cases just proves the point of the OP... this was not the intent nor the reality until we came under a far more liberal, read: activist/anti-religious, court/justice system. That sews the seeds to moral decay which, unless we take it back, will precede our destruction as a great nation. The founders understood that.

Help me out if you can as you seem pretty smart sometimes...maybe this will be one of those times...am looking for a specific word....what is that term one might call people who out and out are not telling the truth? Those who knowingly, completely and blatantly misrepresent another's viewpoint? And really, for what...certainly would not here be to win a debate, as in this case, that ship has already sailed. Destination---my port.

I have never even once intimated, not even hinted, struggling for or desiring a "Christian" US government. One's apparent inordinate fear of religion should not be allowed to cloud one's judgement so. This fear, this constant undercurrent of loathing seems far in disproportion to that necessary for civil debate...

Seinfeld.

 

[American]

Petey, if the US government decided to start enacting shariah law, you would be the first one crying about how wrong it is and how THAT religion shouldn't be involved in government. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I don't think you'd like the can of worms that would be opened by marrying religion and government.

The first amendment is pretty clear. You don't get to force your religion on others.

First off, who is YOU? Second, there's two sides to that coin. Conveniently forgotten is the right to PRACTICE religion, spelled out in the same amendment. Too often in this day and age people are stopped from practicing under the guise of separation of church and state. Students having a prayer in school does not make prayer a law.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Too often in this day and age people are stopped from practicing under the guise of separation of church and state.

That's not actually true, it happens rarely and isn't hard to correct but when it does happen right-wing Christians scream like toddlers with a skinned knee, a thin skinned knee, and that's why you believe so. Between the right-wing Christian watch groups and the ACLU things get worked out.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

First off, who is YOU? Second, there's two sides to that coin. Conveniently forgotten is the right to PRACTICE religion, spelled out in the same amendment. Too often in this day and age people are stopped from practicing under the guise of separation of church and state. Students having a prayer in school does not make prayer a law.

Students can have a prayer in school, they can't LEAD a prayer in school. Back when I was in school we had "see you at the pole" annually, and bible studies in the mornings on school property.

You have a right to practice your religion, not to have it endorsed by the state.

 

[American]

Students can have a prayer in school, they can't LEAD a prayer in school. Back when I was in school we had "see you at the pole" annually, and bible studies in the mornings on school property.

You have a right to practice your religion, not to have it endorsed by the state.

There you go again, show me where I said the state should endorse it.