Is a Completely Secular Government Really so Bad?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If the President is successful in this, the political leanings or ideology or religious convictions or food (etc.) preference of the judge will matter not one whit. And that, in my opinion, is the way it is supposed to be.

Don't be silly, the political nature of the job is implicit in the political origins of the appointment process.

And...you don't need to bold everything.

Also, all you need to do close the quote you want with a '/quote' tag (in brackets), write your response, then copy the 'quote=AlbqOw' tag (or whoever) at the beginning of your next quote you're responding to, and paste the quoted passage in, and write the '/quote' tag when it's done, and then you don't have to include your responses in the quote boxes.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Don't be silly, the political nature of the job is implicit in the political origins of the appointment process.

And...you don't need to bold everything.

Also, all you need to do close the quote you want with a '/quote' tag (in brackets), write your response, then copy the 'quote=AlbqOw' tag (or whoever) at the beginning of your next quote you're responding to, and paste the quoted passage in, and write the '/quote' tag when it's done, and then you don't have to include your responses in the quote boxes.

LOL, sorry to be such a computer klutz but you're going to have to put that in English.

And I do believe President Bush is committed to restore integrity to the court rather than transform it into a rightwing advocacy group.

 

[tryreading]

Just out of curiosity, what do you propose that we do with all the religious names of cities, towns, counties, burroughs etc. in this country? Do you advocate that we change the name of Los Angeles? Saint Paul? San Francisco? Saint Louis? Corpus Christi? Etc.?

More religious names of American towns:

Red Devil
Devils Den
Hellhole Palms
Hell For Certain
Hell
Kill Devil Hills
Satans Kingdom
Hell Hole Swamp
Dry Devil's River
Devils Tower

 

[Columbusite]

First off, could you just put what I say in quotes? [ QUOTE ] [ /QUOTE ] (W/O spaces and just fill in with my response. For the first quote it will alreasdy have my name a beginning quote so for that you only need the [ /QUOTE ] to end the quote)

I have at no time said a Christian majority should decide on religious symbols representing history, culture, or heritage on public property. Again, if you are going to try to use my statements against me, at least use something that I've actually said. Majority and Christian are two different things. I doubt you need them defined or the difference between them explained, but if you have difficulty with this, I will be happy to do so.

In those exact words, no. But you did say the majority should have the final say and that majority is....Christian. Any further explanation needed?

No, but you're going to have to show how the Constitution is being compromised in a way that puts anybody's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights at risk before you have a case that the Constitution is being violated at all.

How about by violating the separation of church & state found in the 1st amendment? My position does not run afoul of violating the Constitution. Everyone is free to practice their religion as they wish, when & where. It's perfect and all without government endorsement of religion. Hell, not even perceived government endorsement of anything pertaining to religion.

Show me the exact phrase in the Constitution that expresses 'separation of Church and state" and show me in the history how government and religion haven't gotten along quite well until just recently. Christianity had nothing to do with slavery in this country or anywhere else--slavery was thriving quite well even before there was Christianity--and it is a very verifiable fact that it was mostly Christian influence that brought a stop to it in this country. Does that mean all Christian were anti-slavery? Of course not any more than all atheists were anti-slavery. This thread is devoted to a concept of secular government, however, so your points re slavery, gays, women et al are entirely moot. I will be happy to discuss any of these on an appropriate thread if you would like to start one however.

No exact phrase, but that's what the 1st amendment sets up. Government and religion have been getting along a little too well when it comes to Christianity. Christianity had nothing to do with slavery!? Yeah...that's why those Southern Baptists all quoted the Bible to justify slavery. Sure, slavery existed before Christianity, but the Bible OK'd it. When your argument for slavery is that you have the creator of the universe backing you, it's going to be hard to change peoples' views when they accept that. From the writings I've come across of liberals who did not adhere to a theology I found that they could find no logical reason to enslave another human being. I thank philosophy for changing Christian theology and I'm glad Christians were able to Christianize a previously heretical notion. In a secular government only the most twisted rationalizations could condone slavery and relegate women, racial minorities, and gays & lesbians to 2nd class citizenry. Some Christians just abused the system to conform to their prejudices, which is rather easy when you have such a large majority on your side.

I have never said that any group run amuck cannot or does not violate the Constitution. But you have not and cannot make a case that people being Christian or any other religion is a threat to the Constitution just because they express their opinions and views like any other citizen has the right to do.

I've never made that case and I never will.

I don't know anything about these groups. I asked you to show me how they are threatening your or anybody else's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights, and agreed to oppose them with you when you do. OTherwise, the fact that you don't like their attitude or what they say or how they say it is not really relevant to this discussion don't you think?

For starters, you could try reading what they themselves are saying, doing, and what their aims are.

You know, I could probably put up several dozen websites of groups that I think really really suck, that are unAmerican, that have dangerous ideas, that are against everything in which I believe, that are lobbying for something I fervently oppose. And it wouldn't mean a damn thing if nobody's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights are being threatened by any of these groups.

This is what you and a few others posting on this thread need to consider before you condemn somebody. Just because you don't like a group or what it says is not license to shut it down or shut it up or demand that public policy shut it out. To do so sounds very much like attempting to deny somebody their Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights.

Actualy, I understand this very well, which is why I actively support the ACLU. The KKK is a horrible organization, but they have their right to free speech and to espouse their version of Christianity. Which brings up another problem with your religious displays of the majority.The KKK, whether you like it or not, are a Christian organization. They may be a minority within the majority Christian populace, but they are still part of the majority culture and religion. Shouldn't they be allowed to put up their religious beliefs in our government building? What about varying versions of the 10 commandments? Is it OK to just have the Protestant one? What about Catholics? They're Christians too. If you alter your stance and say that all religious/non-religious beliefs should adorn our government, what about Satanists and members of the Nation of Islam?

No it is not a religious endorsement. It is an object d'art with absolutely zero requirement to look at it, appreciate it, understand it, recite it, teach it, or obey it. There is absolutely no consequence of any kind imposed on anybody because of the presence of such object. And it damn sure does nothing to threaten the First Amendment which says nothing about separation of Church and State, nor does any place else in the Constitution. Or would a dandelion engraved on a granite sculpture assume special status among flowers? It would become illegal to pick one? You wouldn't be allowed to step on or uproot or spray one with Round-up anymore? Or is it just something engraved on a granite sculpture? The eagle would be even more sinister since there are laws protecting that. Show me any law passed by Congress that requires adherence or reference for any Christian doctrine or any other religious belief.

Baloney. It's not just a piece of art. If that's the case, I can go to any museum or church to see religious art. There is no reason for it to be in the government, nevermind that the 10 commandmants are commandments and not just a sculpture of some sort. The commandments themselves demand you to obey and for the government to hang that up by itself is most certainly endorsement of religion as courts have rejected such displays over and over and over again. Why? Because we have separation of church & state in our 1st amendment. You can choose to ignore that, but why you wouldn't want strict separation I don't know (unless you want to give religion special treatment). This way there is no possibility that religion will develop an entanglement with the government. Preventative measures are the only sure way to uphold the Constitution.

Okay tell me the difference between a town named "Corpus Christi" and a symbol representing a bit of history that happened to include something religious. I await your response on this one.

What symbol representing a bit of history that is religious? The cross? That happended long before the USA was formed. The ten commandments? Already demonstrated how our laws are not based on those. What then? You're asking me to tell you the difference between Spanish place names and a symbol which, as far as I know, doesn't exist. I'll answer anyway. Putting Christian symbols/documents in our government give the impression that our government is Christian. Names of cities that already existed and were in Spanish before they were part of the USA that were not changed yet still Christian and Christian names do not = government endorsement. St. Paul, MN for example, was probably named after a guy who was called...St. Paul. As far as Corpus Christi, we didn't come up with the name and I'll bet that no one would name a place with the English equivalent. Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of anyone who'd want to live in Body of Christ, OH, for example. This just isn't comparable with putting up religious commandments in a government building. As a matter of fact, I've never heard any Christian argue that we are a Christian nation because of the names of a few cities. I have heard that we are a Christian nation because of the ten commandments, "under God", etc, ad nauseum.Tryreading mentioned earlier that the names of cities have equal representation. I've found Athena, OR and Koran, LA. I was surprised at the last one. Like I said, I don't know any symbol that fits the description you gave, so if you could give me at least one example I'd appreciate it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

First off, could you just put what I say in quotes? [ QUOTE ] [ /QUOTE ] (W/O spaces and just fill in with my response. For the first quote it will alreasdy have my name a beginning quote so for that you only need the [ /QUOTE ] to end the quote)



In those exact words, no. But you did say the majority should have the final say and that majority is....Christian. Any further explanation needed?



How about by violating the separation of church & state found in the 1st amendment? My position does not run afoul of violating the Constitution. Everyone is free to practice their religion as they wish, when & where. It's perfect and all without government endorsement of religion. Hell, not even perceived government endorsement of anything pertaining to religion.



No exact phrase, but that's what the 1st amendment sets up. Government and religion have been getting along a little too well when it comes to Christianity. Christianity had nothing to do with slavery!? Yeah...that's why those Southern Baptists all quoted the Bible to justify slavery. Sure, slavery existed before Christianity, but the Bible OK'd it. When your argument for slavery is that you have the creator of the universe backing you, it's going to be hard to change peoples' views when they accept that. From the writings I've come across of liberals who did not adhere to a theology I found that they could find no logical reason to enslave another human being. I thank philosophy for changing Christian theology and I'm glad Christians were able to Christianize a previously heretical notion. In a secular government only the most twisted rationalizations could condone slavery and relegate women, racial minorities, and gays & lesbians to 2nd class citizenry. Some Christians just abused the system to conform to their prejudices, which is rather easy when you have such a large majority on your side.



I've never made that case and I never will.



For starters, you could try reading what they themselves are saying, doing, and what their aims are.



Actualy, I understand this very well, which is why I actively support the ACLU. The KKK is a horrible organization, but they have their right to free speech and to espouse their version of Christianity. Which brings up another problem with your religious displays of the majority.The KKK, whether you like it or not, are a Christian organization. They may be a minority within the majority Christian populace, but they are still part of the majority culture and religion. Shouldn't they be allowed to put up their religious beliefs in our government building? What about varying versions of the 10 commandments? Is it OK to just have the Protestant one? What about Catholics? They're Christians too. If you alter your stance and say that all religious/non-religious beliefs should adorn our government, what about Satanists and members of the Nation of Islam?



Baloney. It's not just a piece of art. If that's the case, I can go to any museum or church to see religious art. There is no reason for it to be in the government, nevermind that the 10 commandmants are commandments and not just a sculpture of some sort. The commandments themselves demand you to obey and for the government to hang that up by itself is most certainly endorsement of religion as courts have rejected such displays over and over and over again. Why? Because we have separation of church & state in our 1st amendment. You can choose to ignore that, but why you wouldn't want strict separation I don't know (unless you want to give religion special treatment). This way there is no possibility that religion will develop an entanglement with the government. Preventative measures are the only sure way to uphold the Constitution.



What symbol representing a bit of history that is religious? The cross? That happended long before the USA was formed. The ten commandments? Already demonstrated how our laws are not based on those. What then? You're asking me to tell you the difference between Spanish place names and a symbol which, as far as I know, doesn't exist. I'll answer anyway. Putting Christian symbols/documents in our government give the impression that our government is Christian. Names of cities that already existed and were in Spanish before they were part of the USA that were not changed yet still Christian and Christian names do not = government endorsement. St. Paul, MN for example, was probably named after a guy who was called...St. Paul. As far as Corpus Christi, we didn't come up with the name and I'll bet that no one would name a place with the English equivalent. Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of anyone who'd want to live in Body of Christ, OH, for example. This just isn't comparable with putting up religious commandments in a government building. As a matter of fact, I've never heard any Christian argue that we are a Christian nation because of the names of a few cities. I have heard that we are a Christian nation because of the ten commandments, "under God", etc, ad nauseum.Tryreading mentioned earlier that the names of cities have equal representation. I've found Athena, OR and Koran, LA. I was surprised at the last one. Like I said, I don't know any symbol that fits the description you gave, so if you could give me at least one example I'd appreciate it.

You're really stretching as usual, but you still have not come up with anything to state how your or anybody else's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights have been violated by the presence of a religious phrase, motto, or object d'art on government property, and until you do all the stretching in the world will not make a case for these things being unconstitutional.

 

[Caine]

You're really stretching as usual, but you still have not come up with anything to state how your or anybody else's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights have been violated by the presence of a religious phrase, motto, or object d'art on government property, and until you do all the stretching in the world will not make a case for these things being unconstitutional.

We have explained this to you, but you refuse to even MENTION the fact that something can be unconstitutional without violating an Individual's rights.

Im giving up on this debate because you refuse to actually be a apart of it, you refuse to ACTUALLY DEBATE.

By refusing to address the fact that something can be unconstitutional without violating an individual's right, and just sticking to your same old speech over and over, you are admitting defeat on the issue.

 

[Columbusite]

You're really stretching as usual, but you still have not come up with anything to state how your or anybody else's Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights have been violated by the presence of a religious phrase, motto, or object d'art on government property, and until you do all the stretching in the world will not make a case for these things being unconstitutional.

Allowing one religion to dominate the government will set the stage for further
erosion of church & state which will be detrimental to those who don't belong to the religion in question. Notice it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" not "Congress shall make no establishment of religion". It is in our best interest to keep government separate from religion to prevent this from happening. The Lemon test is what the Supreme Court uses to determine the constitutionality of cases regarding religion and the 1st amendment:

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

Putting up a ten commandments statue to the exclusion of other religious and secular displays is indeed respecting an establishment of religion. It is letting that speak on behalf of the government and the message is perfectly clear: Christians are preferred citizens. By allowing this, Christians are given special, not equal treatment. Our rights are violated when we are not all treated as equals. I already gave examples of Christian beliefs (in this case prejudices) finding their ways into our laws such as; slavery, interracial marriage, womens' suffrage, gay marriage, and prohibition. When you have "under God" in the pledge, "In God we trust" on our currency, ten commandments erected in courthouses, school led prayer, etc, that only serves the purpose of Christianizing our government, which is respecting an establishment of religion and further Christianizing can be built upon these. That's why there is so much of a fuss from right-wing Christians that want to keep what footing they've gained in our government. The more footing Christianity gains in our government, the more power it has in and over our government, which will inevitably lead to our rights being violated. I think that most, if not all Founding Fathers knew that mixing of religion and government would bring about the end of the nation they built and realized that it is better to keep the two as separate as possible. The 1st amendment accomplishes that by keeping religion out without exception and protects every person's right to practice their religion without any government interference by not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

 

[AlbqOwl]

We have explained this to you, but you refuse to even MENTION the fact that something can be unconstitutional without violating an Individual's rights.

Im giving up on this debate because you refuse to actually be a apart of it, you refuse to ACTUALLY DEBATE.

By refusing to address the fact that something can be unconstitutional without violating an individual's right, and just sticking to your same old speech over and over, you are admitting defeat on the issue.

I have clearly said that you cannot debate a part of the "BILL OF RIGHTS", namely the First Amendment, without dealing with individual rights. That's what this thread is about: Secular government. And the ONLY part of the Constitution that deals with that is the First Amendment. If you think that is not addressing the issue, then I can't help you. I have also offered to debate other issues elsewhere, but I find it impossible to debate coherently if you don't focus on one subject at a time.

The rest of you however refuse to deal with the issue that nobody's Constitutional, Civil, or unalienable rights are being compromised in any way by the presence of a religious phrase, motto, or object d'art on government property. Until you deal with that, you are not dealing with the real debate here.

When nobody's Constitutional, Civil, or unalienable rights are being compromised by references to religion, then the government is not imposing religion on you and the presence of such religious stuff is in no way constitutional. Neither does it compromise the secular nature of government as there is no consequence of any kind to any individual by the presence of such religious words or art.

And finally, for government to not recognize all of American history and culture would be not only silly but dishonest, as there is no denying that religion has played a huge role in American history, culture, laws, and mores and this was all without compromising the secular nature of government in any way.

In answer to the question that started the thread, secular government is a good thing. The Constitution set it up to be that way for a reason. And this secularism has never been seriously threatened by anybody. If it should remove and ban all religious references from the public sector, however, it would no longer be secular.

 

[Caine]

I have clearly said that you cannot debate a part of the "BILL OF RIGHTS", namely the First Amendment, without dealing with individual rights. That's what this thread is about: Secular government. And the ONLY part of the Constitution that deals with that is the First Amendment. If you think that is not addressing the issue, then I can't help you. I have also offered to debate other issues elsewhere, but I find it impossible to debate coherently if you don't focus on one subject at a time.

The rest of your argument means nothing, and neither does this one really.

So bascially because the seperation of church and state is a part of this " BILL OF RIGHTS " which ONLY focuses on the rights of INDIVIDUALS, (wouldnt it be the Bill of Individual rights?), that the government very well could establish a state of Christianity, because even though its in the "Bill of Individual Rights" since any violation isnt a violation of a person's specific rights, the government could trample that whole idea?
That is basically what you are saying here, and it is DEAD WRONG.

Until you can come up with a better argument, I rest my case. You argument is lacking logic. Its like saying that its just a bunch of words that don't mean anything because they don't deal with individual rights. Thats retarded.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The rest of your argument means nothing, and neither does this one really.

So bascially because the seperation of church and state is a part of this " BILL OF RIGHTS " which ONLY focuses on the rights of INDIVIDUALS, (wouldnt it be the Bill of Individual rights?), that the government very well could establish a state of Christianity, because even though its in the "Bill of Individual Rights" since any violation isnt a violation of a person's specific rights, the government could trample that whole idea?
That is basically what you are saying here, and it is DEAD WRONG.

Until you can come up with a better argument, I rest my case. You argument is lacking logic. Its like saying that its just a bunch of words that don't mean anything because they don't deal with individual rights. Thats retarded.

When it comes right down to it, what rights are there other than individual rights? You have not yet addressed my previous comments that there is no phrase or statement whatsoever in the Constitution expressing a separation of Church and State. The First Amendment quite adequately prevents the government from establishing a "State of Christianity", but you seem to be avoiding the First Amendment lately. Why is that?

If you rest your case on your remarks, you would lose in any debate competition in the country.

In order to show how the federal government is not secular, you will have to show how it is requiring you to say, profess, believe, or behave in any matter that is defined as religious. There is nothing in the government, including the presence of some religious phrases, mottos, or art on public property that has ever or is currently doing this.

In order for you to show how the presence of religious words, mottos, phrases, or art on public property is unconstitutional, you will have to show how any person's (or group's if you prefer) Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights are being threatened, jeopardized, or violated in any way by the presence of such things.

You have failed to do either.

So if you are done, then I win. :smile:

 

[Caine]

When it comes right down to it, what rights are there other than individual rights? You have not yet addressed my previous comments that there is no phrase or statement whatsoever in the Constitution expressing a separation of Church and State. The First Amendment quite adequately prevents the government from establishing a "State of Christianity", but you seem to be avoiding the First Amendment lately. Why is that?

If you rest your case on your remarks, you would lose in any debate competition in the country.

In order to show how the federal government is not secular, you will have to show how it is requiring you to say, profess, believe, or behave in any matter that is defined as religious. There is nothing in the government, including the presence of some religious phrases, mottos, or art on public property that has ever or is currently doing this.

In order for you to show how the presence of religious words, mottos, phrases, or art on public property is unconstitutional, you will have to show how any person's (or group's if you prefer) Constitutional, legal, or unalienable rights are being threatened, jeopardized, or violated in any way by the presence of such things.

You have failed to do either.

So if you are done, then I win. :smile:

Hmm... I think you have it all wrong here.
If you think ANYONE on this site is here for "Competitive Debate" like in a high school class or something your dead wrong. Im not here to debate things as if I were in a competition, I saw some stuff on these debate competitions on TV, they are the farthest thing from debate, its like trying to talk as fast as you can.

So, I have CONTINUED every other post to inform you that this doesn't violate an individual's rights, yet is still unconstitutional. The courts agree with this in most cases.

Basically, your saying that if the government wants to they can setup the "Christian Party" and Elect officials who will make laws based on thier religion's specific moral views, and since nobody's individual rights are violated, there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, I know this happens in some instances, but, the way you state it, they can make it blatently obvious, and there would be nothing wrong with it as long as they still allow people of other religions to practice thier religion. This is incorrect.

In conclusion, I would have to say that the from the results of the poll, and the fact that you are the only one who continues to argue the Pat Robertson side of the situation, I would have to say that there is a reason for that.
Think about it.
Think about the fact that the courts of this nation agree with my views, some even SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING a "Seperation of Church and State"

Im done arguing with you because you have given up on logic and law to hug onto your religion, and continue to ask the same question when it has been answered numerous times, and still refuse to answer the arguments from my side.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Hmm... I think you have it all wrong here.
If you think ANYONE on this site is here for "Competitive Debate" like in a high school class or something your dead wrong. Im not here to debate things as if I were in a competition, I saw some stuff on these debate competitions on TV, they are the farthest thing from debate, its like trying to talk as fast as you can.

So, I have CONTINUED every other post to inform you that this doesn't violate an individual's rights, yet is still unconstitutional. The courts agree with this in most cases.

Basically, your saying that if the government wants to they can setup the "Christian Party" and Elect officials who will make laws based on thier religion's specific moral views, and since nobody's individual rights are violated, there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, I know this happens in some instances, but, the way you state it, they can make it blatently obvious, and there would be nothing wrong with it as long as they still allow people of other religions to practice thier religion. This is incorrect.

In conclusion, I would have to say that the from the results of the poll, and the fact that you are the only one who continues to argue the Pat Robertson side of the situation, I would have to say that there is a reason for that.
Think about it.
Think about the fact that the courts of this nation agree with my views, some even SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING a "Seperation of Church and State"

Im done arguing with you because you have given up on logic and law to hug onto your religion, and continue to ask the same question when it has been answered numerous times, and still refuse to answer the arguments from my side.

1) You're the one who said I refuse to debate. So I showed you how I am debating and now you don't want to? Mercy, you're going to have to send me a better road map of your criteria here. It's getting very difficult to follow.

2) I believe I specifically said that the First Amendment ensures that the government cannot establish a "Christian Party" or any other religious party. I can also recommend some excellent remedial reading courses if that was not an intentional oversight.

3) I can assure you that my views in no way parallel those of Rev. Robertson, but we'll set that ad hominem aside as it is irrelevent to the discussion anyway.

4) I have addressed every pertinent point you've made. I accept that I won't allow you to dictate what I will say or how I will say it, but I have ignored no pertinent point. You however, have avoided and continue to avoid several of my points which is why I feel it necessary to keep repeating them as they continue to be relevent and pertinent to the discussion as I see it.

5) You close again with another apparently empty promise to discontinue the discussion and again heap on an ad hominem that I suppose makes you feel better. I certainly hope that it does. I do believe, however, that my logic will hold up in this discussion as nobody has so far been able to refute it. I continue to hold a conviction that no opinion is worth having if it cannot be clearly articulated, will not hold up under scrutiny, and/or cannot be defended with something other than fuzzy notions, pure personal preference, or ad hominem attacks on others.

 

[Caine]

Im not debating anymore, im just going to sit back and point out your errors.

2) I believe I specifically said that the First Amendment ensures that the government cannot establish a "Christian Party" or any other religious party. I can also recommend some excellent remedial reading courses if that was not an intentional oversight.

You said this in your last post

The First Amendment quite adequately prevents the government from establishing a "State of Christianity", but you seem to be avoiding the First Amendment lately. Why is that?

Which means that maybe YOU need that remedial reading, as I changed my argument to make a little more sense, since you wanted to do the establishing a National Church part instead of the obvious intent of my original "State of Christianity" comment.... Please, Go on.

I accept that I won't allow you to dictate what I will say or how I will say it,

This statement = I won't even mention the points that make me look wrong (like something not having to be in violation of individual rights to be unconstitutional).

I certainly hope that it does. I do believe, however, that my logic will hold up in this discussion as nobody has so far been able to refute it. I continue to hold a conviction that no opinion is worth having if it cannot be clearly articulated, will not hold up under scrutiny, and/or cannot be defended with something other than fuzzy notions, pure personal preference, or ad hominem attacks on others.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.

Unconstitutional

adj : not consistent with or according to a constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution

 

[AlbqOwl]

Im not debating anymore, im just going to sit back and point out your errors.


You said this in your last post
Which means that maybe YOU need that remedial reading, as I changed my argument to make a little more sense, since you wanted to do the establishing a National Church part instead of the obvious intent of my original "State of Christianity" comment.... Please, Go on.

This statement = I won't even mention the points that make me look wrong (like something not having to be in violation of individual rights to be unconstitutional).




The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.

Unconstitutional

adj : not consistent with or according to a constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution

See? If you can't even keep your word about discontinuing debate, how can I take you seriously about anything else. You are still completely misrepresenting both what I've said and what I intended. And you are still countering with statements that are incorrect and/or unsupportable and/or irrelevent to the discussion.

Now then. I'll do you a favor. The discussion has run its course and has become entirely circular and I'll unsubscribe so you won't have to deal with me any further. Of course that will prompt one or two others to point out later on that I broke off a debate because nobody agreed with me. That's okay. You and I know better.

I never claim to be infallible on anything and perhaps there is somebody out there who can blow holes in my arguments. You haven't. I still won this one. :smile:

 

[tryreading]

...fuzzy notions, pure personal preference, or ad hominem attacks on others.

You have described your own debating style. The 'pure personal preference' line is spot-on.