• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Seperation of Church and State

Status
Not open for further replies.

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Re: fightenmad

I was making the point that people voting because they are "anti-gay" is unreasonable, because the issue of gay marriage shouldn't be up the federal government, and therefore, an unresonable assertation (sp?) for voting for Bush. Gun owners only because Bush is the NRA brain child and religious fundamentalists, who completly ignore seperation of church and state. It is unreasonable to vote based on these issues because of foriegn policy, the economy, and the enviroment which you brought up in your post.

The economy is shit. There is nothing else to describe it. It's terrible. To be honest with you, we need more taxes. Sure it's hard to do that as a politician, but it would work. I forgot what I was reading, but one major way to fix a deficit in the economy would be to raise taxes.

Another thing about foriegn policy and Bush that bothers me is that everyone assumes that because he's a "good ol' southern boy" from Texas that he can "kick some ass!" (against terrorism) We'll I'd have to agree with them there, he's really kicked America in the ass.

Sure he's made SOME advances in the "war on terror" (which I find hilarious. War on terror? That's like having a war on jealousy, its a freaking concept), but his blind support of Isreal and meddling in Middle Eastern affairs led to an increase in Al Qaeda numbers. Good job Georgey.

Just whatever you do, don't ask George what Tribal Soverignty in the 21st Century is and the role it plays in America. He has no freaking idea...
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,987
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: fightenmad

who completly ignore seperation of church and state.

Show me where in the constitution that it says "seperation of church and state" and I will buy you whatever book you want on Amazon.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Re: fightenmad

Per vague to heyjoeo
Show me where in the constitution that it says "seperation of church and state" and I will buy you whatever book you want on Amazon
If you can find that I'll give you a hundred bucks.

Freaking liberals love to change the constitution to fit there latest bitch. The problem is most people don't take the time to actually read the constitution and beleive the liberal rant. What a bunch of wankers.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Re: fightenmad

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment to the Constitution

I can also quote the founding fathers and their views on church and state for you but I have to borrow the book from my teacher.

I'll comment on Bush's economy policy later, I'm going out of town tonight and tomorrow but I'll be able to debate shortly.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Re: fightenmad

Heyjoeo

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment to the Constitution
That says absolutly nothing about seperation of curch and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

all that says is that the government will not establish a state relegion or prohibit anyone from worshipping any religion they want. How that equals seperation of church and state is beyond me. And there is nothing in the constitution to support such a claim.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Re: fightenmad

CSA_TX said:
Heyjoeo


That says absolutly nothing about seperation of curch and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

QUOTE]

I hate to break this to you but lawyers don't speak in the same easy to understand terms that you and I do. Bigeminal associates, reviewing the afore substance, concur in the containment of it's lucution to wit: Seperation of church and state. Or; A lot of of legal scholars, a great many of them very conservative, have reviewed this and they're pretty much in agreement that it does indeed say, basically, "seperation of church and state."

Now you guys aren't the first to argue that it doesn't and I'm sure you're not going to be the last. Especially given the recent highjacking of the GOP by the religious right. I mean it's OK that a large percentage of you are out of work, as long as Jim and Stan don't get married, right?
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Re: fightenmad

Pacridge regarding your coment of Jim and Stan getting married please see the previous post regarding Gay Marrige before making any distinction to my beleifs regarding the subject. Post can be found at

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=125&page=3&pp=10

Again I ask for you to clarify your statement regarding lower and middle class TAX cuts

For the seperation of church and state issue

the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment, nor in any other founding document for that matter.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in the November issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine, "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' [between church and state]."

The entire "constitutional separation of church and state" is a recent fabrication of activist judges who have ignored the Constitution's clear meaning.

Vauge: perhaps we need to move this item to its on post due to we may be off original topic.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Topic has been moved to its own heading with Blessing from Admin
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,987
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
CSA, a few of us know how passionate you are about the strict rules of the constitution.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson whom mubbled the words about seperation between church and state. There is NOT one, but why do extream (on BOTH sides) claim that there is?
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
It's a myth that there is a seperation of church and state
Starting with the famous 1801 letter written by the Baptists of Danbury, Conn., to newly elected President Thomas Jefferson – and Jefferson's brief response, in which he coined the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure his constituents that the new Constitution would not establish a national church or otherwise infringe on their religious liberties

Listed below are some of the frightning realities this myth has caused

In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" at his school's graduation would be arrested and locked up. "And make no mistake," announced Judge Samuel B. Kent, "the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court."

In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal's office. After his third such prayer "offense," little Raymond was segregated him from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week's detention.

"Separation of church and state" was used by the ACLU to demand that a banner proclaiming "God bless America," erected outside a school shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to honor the 3,000 murdered Americans, must be taken down
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Re: fightenmad

CSA_TX said:
Pacridge regarding your coment of Jim and Stan getting married please see the previous post regarding Gay Marrige before making any distinction to my beleifs regarding the subject. Post can be found at

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=125&page=3&pp=10

Again I ask for you to clarify your statement regarding lower and middle class TAX cuts

QUOTE]

I wasn't commenting on "your" personal position regarding gay marriage, sorry if you took my comment that way. I honestly din't know if you opposed or supported it.

As for my position regarding tax cuts I did clarify that it it's thread. Least I thought I did?
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Pacridge you did this specify your postition however with the post getting moved I missed it.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Re: fightenmad

CSA_TX said:
Pacridge regarding your coment of Jim and Stan getting married please see the previous post regarding Gay Marrige before making any distinction to my beleifs regarding the subject. Post can be found at

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=125&page=3&pp=10

Again I ask for you to clarify your statement regarding lower and middle class TAX cuts

For the seperation of church and state issue

the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment, nor in any other founding document for that matter.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in the November issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine, "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' [between church and state]."

The entire "constitutional separation of church and state" is a recent fabrication of activist judges who have ignored the Constitution's clear meaning.

Vauge: perhaps we need to move this item to its on post due to we may be off original topic.
Geezus, are you a baptist? Do you take the bible literally too? The founding fathers were clearly religious, but CLEARLY supported no government infringement in religion. Just because it doesn't say "THERE SHOULD BE A SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA!!!!!!" (which I think it does in the first amendment) doesn't mean you should say religion should be a part of politics.

Let me get back to this. Movie time.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Heyjoeo
Geezus, are you a baptist? Do you take the bible literally too? The founding fathers were clearly religious, but CLEARLY supported no government infringement in religion. Just because it doesn't say "THERE SHOULD BE A SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA!!!!!!" (which I think it does in the first amendment) doesn't mean you should say religion should be a part of politics.
No not a baptist or a aethiest I am a christian in that I beleive in christ however I'm not very fond of orginized relegion. I have a great relationship with god and I am very blessed in many ways.

I don't beleive religion should be a part of politics and don't recall every bringing that up. However I don't beleive my kid should be denied the right to discuss his religion or his beleifs in public. I beleive every child in this country should say the pledge of aleigence to the flag includding the one nation under god part in public school. IF we have the freedom of religion and no government infringment why must the ten comandments be removed from a public building if the public wants it their. Why if we have a freedom of religion does the ACLU file suit against the military for supporting the Boy Scouts of America because they have to make a pledge to god.

How does guernteing every citizen the right to a religion of their choosing create a seperation of curch and state.

Heyjoeo do you belive in the individul right to bear arms or do you belive it is a collective right for the militia?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
Heyjoeo

I don't beleive religion should be a part of politics and don't recall every bringing that up. However I don't beleive my kid should be denied the right to discuss his religion or his beleifs in public. I beleive every child in this country should say the pledge of aleigence to the flag includding the one nation under god part in public school. IF we have the freedom of religion and no government infringment why must the ten comandments be removed from a public building if the public wants it their. Why if we have a freedom of religion does the ACLU file suit against the military for supporting the Boy Scouts of America because they have to make a pledge to god.

How does guernteing every citizen the right to a religion of their choosing create a seperation of curch and state.

Heyjoeo do you belive in the individul right to bear arms or do you belive it is a collective right for the militia?
I like what you said here. I think it reflects a realistic view of how a majority of the country feels. Again, I'm willing to be wrong and maybe I am. I'm not sure I agree with your comment regarding the ten commandments in public buildings. My presonal jury is still out on this one. I'm kind of leaning toward not allowing the State or government to post things of a religious nature. It seems that we're such a diverse nation that posting such things may not be fair to people of other religions. And to be honest I'm not sure I even get the last few regarding thou shall not "covet." I think they're saying you shouldn't be jealous of? But if your community is so set on having them posted and the "damn liberal judges" won't let you post them why not just compile a bunch of signs that basically say the same thing and post them? You could have one that said "In this county it is not acceptable and is illegal to steal" or "In this city we do not approve of the act of adultery." If you live in Texas you could post a sign that says "Welcome to Texas, If you kill somebody here- we will kill you back, have a nice day, enjoy your stay." You can't tell me a judge, any judge is going to say you can't posts signs pointing out that it's illegal to steal.

Regarding your right to bear arms. Do you think it's OK to own firearms- any firearms?:shoot
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I think it I have the right to own as many firearms as I want. The second amendment gives me that right. I also think gun control is unconstitutional. I really have no idea how any one could see it diferently. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. It is a hell of a lot clearer than the first amendment and the original debate of seperation of church and state IMO.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I'm kind of leaning toward not allowing the State or government to post things of a religious nature. It seems that we're such a diverse nation that posting such things may not be fair to people of other religions.
Pacridge the thing that scares me regarding this is that our founding documents could be considered religious in nature. Both the declaration of independece and the constition have reference to a Creator and God.
When or where will it stop?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
I think it I have the right to own as many firearms as I want. The second amendment gives me that right. I also think gun control is unconstitutional. I really have no idea how any one could see it diferently. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. It is a hell of a lot clearer than the first amendment and the original debate of seperation of church and state IMO.
As you read my response keep in mind I currently hold an FFL and would be happy to sell you any number of "arms" (No this isn't spam and I'm not advertising, just making a point.)

Now the second amendment grants you and any other American citizen the right to bear arms. I could not agree with you more. I also could not agree with you more that it couldn't be any clearer especially the part concerning "shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how many "ways" you could take that. So you and I can still go get a beer and tell bad jokes while watching football- Go Cowboys!

Now, when you say "I also think gun control is unconstitutional." I'm affraid I have to differ with you. This is where I'm going to start talking "liberal crap" that's probably gonna keep you from tossin' a few back with me. We have gun control laws and they're not unconstitutional and they're not all bad. This is why you, most likely unless you have the proper permits, can not come to me and buy an HK 21E or 23E fully auto .308 or .223. I don't think everyone should have the "right" to own a machine gun or any number of other "arms." I got freinds who'd like to own one and to be completely honest I kind of glad they can't (please don't tell 'em I said so, they're nice guys but trust me- no good would come from this. At a minimum there would be power tranformers all over this county that would not longer work and people would be without power for weeks). Plus the 2nd amend. is very clear, no give or take, right? You have the right to bear arms. Aren't Nuclear weapons arms? You think you should be allowed to own a nuke? And if you can buy one how easy would it be for some terrorist to come over and buy one, machine gun, nuke or whatever? Sorry these people that try to make the right to bear arms a black and white all or nothing issue are turning a blind eye to a lot of facts.

All that being said- I live in a "Blue" state, Oregon. But I live in a very "Red", rural section of it. Oregon is like a snap shot of the rest of the country in that the metro areas are filled with liberals and the rural areas are filled with conservatives. I tend to think all area's might best be served by their own laws regarding guns. In Oregon it's illegal for a students to bring a gun to school. Period. Per PC that sounds good. But out here where I live we use to go to school all the time with our rifles in the back window of our truck, I know you what I talking about, and the minute class got we'd head for the hills and deer, duck or elk hunt. I think that law should apply to urban areas. Kids in Portland, Seattle, LA or even New York who, most likely, aren't going to be using that gun for hunting but for god knows what- fine agianst the law to bring a gun to school. But out here? Trust me kids out here aren't shooting each other over gang colors. If they were going to shoot each other- there would be bodies everywhere because everybody got a gun.
 
Last edited:

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Where has this discussion gone? Who cares about the second amend? You can have a gun if legally obtained. There are limitations on certain guns considered to be for the use of killing other human beings. That's it. Be all end all.

This discussion is about Seperation of Church and State. Your kid HAS the right to discuss and openly profess his religion all he wants. He just can't impose it on someone else. That was the main idea of the founding fathers.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,987
Reaction score
6,090
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
*I created 2 forums for the amendments hoping to remain topical

I'm willing to be wrong and maybe I am. I'm not sure I agree with your comment regarding the ten commandments in public buildings. My presonal jury is still out on this one. I'm kind of leaning toward not allowing the State or government to post things of a religious nature.

If someone wanted to display "allah" is great or whatever - I would not be offended. It is within the feedom of expression. No one says that you have to agree with what is written.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
*I created 2 forums for the amendments hoping to remain topical

If someone wanted to display "allah" is great or whatever - I would not be offended. It is within the feedom of expression. No one says that you have to agree with what is written.
No I wouldn't either but when the government starts puting stuff up I'd like to be more than a little cautious. Now as for these things that have been in place for years, not sure I don't think they might not just qualify as historical much in the same frane we don't go trying to re-write the Doc. of Ind. Much like these people that live where the ten comd. have been displayed in the same place for the past 160 years. Sorry I think there's a limit and some things are more history then religion.

And to you people out there trying, fighting, clawing to get them removed- when you get them removed what do you get? You get a bunch of people pissed off at ya, that's what ya get. Other than that nothing. You'll be just like black people after OJ won. Black people were all so happy, Oh, we won, we won. What did they win? Nothing. They could go to their mailbox everyday and check for their OJ prize and there'd be nothing there. (And no I'm not a racist. That OJ line comes from a black comedian named Chris Rock) Unless it makes me racist just to say it since I'm not black. You know kind of like saying the word nigger.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
CSA_TX said:
Pacridge the thing that scares me regarding this is that our founding documents could be considered religious in nature. Both the declaration of independece and the constition have reference to a Creator and God.
When or where will it stop?
First of all, I am a student from the University of Dayton who just spent over a month debating the separation of church and state, and there is, indeed, a constitutionally established separation, whether it is a wall, as Jefferson said, and the Supreme Court agreed with in Everson v. Board, or a line, as the Court said in Lemon v. Kurtzman.

But, the posts seem to have gone the direction of personal religious freedom, which was the value that we based our argument on. By the first amendment, the founders, but no means, intended for our personal religious practices to be infringed upon, hence the free exercise clause. What they did not want to see was a government-endorsed religion, or a religion-endorsed government. They wanted the two to be as separate as possible so that both could thrive independent of the other.

To CSA_TX, where in the Constitution does it refer to God or to a Creator? As THE founding document of our nation, it should be taken as a representation of what the founders intended our government to be. It is clearly secular, with not a single reference to God, a Creator, or religion (except to say that there shall be no religious test for a candidate for office, and, of course, the first amendment).

Being new to this forum, I hope to offer some thought for this debate (and others).
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
I'd like to segregate the below gem because it shows the unclarity of the liberals' usual position:

joe said:
The founding fathers were clearly religious, but CLEARLY supported no government infringement in religion
He said this in argument for his interpretation of "separation of church and state".

But, if you look at the language, what is CLEAR - due to its brevity - is that he believes government should not infringe on religion. So shouldn't he then reject government's attempts to prevent a religious act?

He gave no other qualifications for his position - just simply that government should not infringe in religion.

So, what other qualifiers to that position would the liberals need to add to make sense in their advocation of keeping people from acting religiously?

This should be fun...
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
WKL815 said:
I'd like to segregate the below gem because it shows the unclarity of the liberals' usual position:



He said this in argument for his interpretation of "separation of church and state".

But, if you look at the language, what is CLEAR - due to its brevity - is that he believes government should not infringe on religion. So shouldn't he then reject government's attempts to prevent a religious act?

He gave no other qualifications for his position - just simply that government should not infringe in religion.

So, what other qualifiers to that position would the liberals need to add to make sense in their advocation of keeping people from acting religiously?

This should be fun...
Who's trying to keep people from "acting religiously?" The issue isn't whether people can act religiously, it's whether the governemnt can engage in the behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom