i love how people think religion is the answer when in so many cases it is the cause of the problem.
Church and State
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
That is the sticking point for most of these cases. Many people will tell you that endorsement doesn't cross the line and isn't the same as establishment. And, while that is semantically true, the government endorsing a specific religion (or any religion over non-religion) is still infringing on my rights and still a defacto establishment.
Thank you. There are many who don't share your opinion and would just as soon tell me to get out if I don't like their religion shoved down my throat.
If my tax money is being used by the government to establish a certain religion as "better" than others through the use of government funding, then I think it does.
It's a good exercise. Other things you can try are substituting Allah for god, like in the pledge of allegiance or on our coins.
with religion comes the expected level of adherence, conformity, & justification with (sometimes violent) actions against outsiders.
unlike communism, which is a perfected manifestation of survival-of-the-fittest, and therefore cannot be challenged.
but the problem with religion is that so many people believe that their religion is always right and is the right one to worship.
Adherence and conformity to a single belief.
Justification that what you believe is correct and everyone else is wrong.
A process not so different from the case of political systems or beliefs...
hence: "theocracy"
hence: "democracy"
Or "Lord of the flies" for that matter. 
isn't that about self-governing? so more like anarchism which doesn't really work in the sense that people who support anarchism believe that they follow the "right" philosophy and that it is always "right." anarchism is all about an individual's right to choose. so it doesn't necessarily tie into what i said about religion.Or "Lord of the flies" for that matter.
unless of course you meant something completely different by that.
Two words: Natural Law.
Done.
:biggrin:
Done.
:biggrin:
Actually, it's pretty different if you take into account how those political beliefs come about.
To use that word to equate liberal vs. conservative philosophies in government vs. a government run by the dictates of a holy book is to stretch the meaning of that word so much that it loses all meaning.$tinkle said:
You're correct, sir.
In 1796, an act was passed by Congress under President Washington regulating the land given to the Society of United Brethren for propagating the gospel among the heathen. The act was later extended by President Jefferson. Do you suppose that conflicts with his supposed insistence upon a wall of separation between church and state?
Have you ever read the 1802 letter from which the phrase wall of separation of church and state was taken? Is there any truth to the assertion that the letter was written to a group of Baptists in Connecticut ensuring that their church would be protected from the government by a one way wall of protection?
How did that letter produce the justification for keeping a high school girl from mentioning Jesus at her high school graduation?
Is it true that Thomas Jefferson set up the University of Virginia using state funds with rules including a ban on swearing and an expectation that students would attend religious services?
Given that Thomas Jefferson did not attend the constitutional convention, why is it that people often quote him when insisting that the separation of church and state is a constitutional requirement? Is it possible that many of these self-described liberals are unable to differentiate between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?
How many of the states that ratified the First Amendment had official state churches?
People are so knee-jerk reactionary sometimes...
The "Society of United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the heathen" was the name of the society. It was a Native American group that lost their land and was granted their land back by the fed. gov.
Apparently not. link
Here is the full text.
A sticky situation to be sure. The school was worried that allowing a girl to mention Jesus at a school event would amount to endorsement by the school. I'm not sure they were right about that. Her words are her own and she should be able to make better decisions about what is or isn't appropriate.
Wrong again. link
That is quite the cheap shot, considering it is usually those on your side which point to the language in the Declaration as supporting your position.
Jefferson is quoted because he originated the term, "Separation of Church and State." Even though he didn't attend the con. convention, he was certainly instrumental in the development of the documents produced. Madison was also very influential and had the same views as Jefferson. If you want to speak about Madison, we can, but it will end up the same.
Fourteenth amendment.
You were saying?People are so knee-jerk reactionary sometimes...
i wonder...just wonder...if there are groups out there that are so bent on their own agenda (in this case i'm thinking same-sex marriage), that they'll go after a "tradition" like all-things-jesus, in order to wear down opposition.
my tin foil hat has a chin-strap, so it ain't going anywhere.
my tin foil hat has a chin-strap, so it ain't going anywhere.
Irony, thy name is $tinkle.
Are you seriously accusing me of going after some "tradition" to further some shady agenda, like same-sex marriage? C'mon man. I'm going to the source, vs. the erroneous misquotes that I answered that probably came from Barton, who has extensively misquoted the founding fathers, been caught doing it, and has had to retract just about every quote he's used, but not before the evangelical community latched onto it and started using it erroneously ad nauseum.
no, it's not about you. it's a collective - the pentavarit, if that helps you. hence my donning of a tin foil hat.
of course we all have agendas. as i'm sure you've read it when put nobly: "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"