If you can find that I'll give you a hundred bucks.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
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; 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
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 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?
Huh? I'm sorry I must be lost. What are you saying?CSA_TX said:Pacridge you did this specify your postition however with the post getting moved I missed it.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.)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.
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.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.
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.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?
joe said:The founding fathers were clearly religious, but CLEARLY supported no government infringement in religion
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.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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?