Separation Of Church And State "Is A Lie"

[jochhejaam]

Uh, I think if one can prove it never existed (especially when the burden of proof isn't even on him) then it is pretty much the MOST educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion.

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

[FromWayDowntown]

If you disagree with something, deny it ever existed. That's quite the educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion that runs contrary to your own.
Well done FWD.

Either the Library of Congress has the wrong draft of the letter, or your effort to paraphrase Jefferson's words is demonstrably incorrect. I didn't offer an opinion -- I think I simply showed that Jefferson's do ent does not say what you contend it says.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Wait -- you cite a specific source (which is THE specific source -- the only specific source -- for the wall of separation metaphor), contend it says something (that government should adhere to Christian principles), and then, when it's shown to not say what you contend it says, you implore us to search all of history and prove your erroneous paraphrase wrong?!?!? That's even more ridiculous than contending that hypothetical situations are an untenable argumentative strategy.

Prove to me that Jefferson EVER, ANYWHERE said what you contend he said.

[Spurminator]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

No, the burden is on you to prove its existence because you used it as a source.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg3.htm

[Spurminator]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

But that's true, spurm -- I'm sure it is, because I read it somewhere on the internet.

[scott]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Pretty telling on your unflexibility on the subject (I don't even know or need to know what the subject is... I just clicked on this for some odd reason). If someone is able to show you the fallacy of one of your assertions, it won't matter because you'll just move on to some other assertion. Thanks for the clarification.

[Duff McCartney]

Penn Gillette? Yeah, there's a guy we should all be listening too when it comes to politics . . .

All I'm saying is I agree with that statement. There should be complete and utter seperation of church and state and that just doesn't happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.

[Extra Stout]

All I'm saying is I agree with that statement. There should be complete and utter seperation of church and state and that just doesn't happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.

"Complete and utter" perhaps isn't as clear as you might have hoped it to be.

Is your position that religiously informed morals and ethics should be excluded from the public forum?

[Mr. Peabody]

I agree with Penn Gillette, but what Penn Gillette and I think is really of no consequence.

[Spurminator]

somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.

I don't know that it "got" that way... It's been that way since the beginning. Used to be, a candidate's DENOMINATION was a major factor. The very idea of a non-Christian President has really never been seriously entertained until very recent times.

[Mr. Peabody]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

This is fun.

Remember when GW said, "I don't care about Blacks!"

Prove to me that he's never said that.

[Spurminator]

This is fun.

Remember when GW said, "I don't care about Blacks!"

Prove to me that he's never said that.

Excellent point... We should call Al.

[boutons_]

"politicians religious beliefs are a major factor"

religion and ethnicity taboos were broken by JFK who was both

1)Catholic

and

2)Irish.

The was 1960 when only White/Nothern European/Protestants ran the country, aka, WASPs.

ie, a Jew or Catholic or Irish or Italian running for Pres before 1960 was basically a non-starter.

[DarkReign]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Oh my God, JJ...thats really very ignorant. You claimed TJ said it, not FWD. He doesnt have to disprove , you have to prove it. The burden of proof falls on you, not him.

Wow....is this how you debate in real life with other real people? If so, you dont have much respect, even if its faked in your direction.

[DarkReign]

"politicians religious beliefs are a major factor"

religion and ethnicity taboos were broken by JFK who was both

1)Catholic

and

2)Irish.

The was 1960 when only White/Nothern European/Protestants ran the country, aka, WASPs.

ie, a Jew or Catholic or Irish or Italian running for Pres before 1960 was basically a non-starter.

No offense, bouts, but he was also filthy, stinking ing rich who had friends in Hollywood who could promote a message from a media untapped by the politicians of the day.

It hasnt happened since...dont think it ever will again.

[boutons_]

Sure, Kennedy was part of the east coast plutocracy whose great fortune came from boot-legging.

Before Kennedy, being Catholic and/or Irish precluded the thought of running for the presidency. We now have Catholic Kerry and Jew Lieberman who run.

US society has become more open since the 1950s.

[jochhejaam]

Pretty telling on your unflexibility on the subject (I don't even know or need to know what the subject is... I just clicked on this for some odd reason). If someone is able to show you the fallacy of one of your assertions, it won't matter because you'll just move on to some other assertion. Thanks for the clarification.

Exhausting arguments that oppose a line of thought doesn't equate to being inflexible, it's an attempt to bring the issue to some sort of consensus or conclusion in my own mind.


I though I was posting an accurate quoting of Jefferson but I was not able to substantiate that the quote attributed to him exists. Therefore, I move that post #148 in this thread be stricken from the record (who's the striker of the posts around here? ). The quote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, and on record with the Library of Congress, does not credit Jefferson with part of the quote I obtained. (nasty rumor I guess)
Fortunately this misinformation did not lead us to war.

I don't like misinformation any more than the next person.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't like misinformation any more than the next person.

That's an interesting retrenching from your original response, which was fairly direct in saying that unless someone could prove to you that Jefferson never said it, you would continue to believe it. I'm glad to see you've at least relented from that.

Believe me -- if Jefferson had ever said what you claimed he did, there likely wouldn't have been 50+ years of Establishment Clause bickering.

[Winehole23]

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-oklahoma-city

[Winehole23]

Extra Stout's memorable reply to FWD: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post1175079

[FromWayDowntown]

in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-oklahoma-city

And away we go . . . .

[Winehole23]

Members of the world’s oldest faith would like to join a display of religious symbols at Oklahoma’s state capitol, joining a Judeo-Christian tablet and a proposed Satanist monument.


The Universal Society of Hinduism plans to submit an application to the Oklahoma State Capitol Preservation Commission for permission to place a statue of Lord Hanuman on the statehouse grounds.


“If the Oklahoma State Capitol was open to different monuments, we would love to have a statue of Lord Hanuman, who was greatly revered and worshipped and known for incredible strength and was (a) perfect grammarian,” said Rajan Zed, president of Universal Society of Hinduism.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/1...pitol-grounds/

[RandomGuy]

Extra Stout's memorable reply to FWD: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post1175079

"FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades."

[Blake]

What is memorable about that?

The only thing I'd add is that fear has been the evangelical preacher's biggest tool in keeping the sheep in line from almost day 1 in the history of christianity

It always will be, imo.