Myth of Seperation of Church and State

[Richard G]

Educate yourself:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[Mr Manifesto]

Now educate yourself.

Seperation of church and state is not "Freedom from religion". It is about ensuring that no religion has the power to control which religon others practice. You can practice whatever religion you like in America. You just can't use the state as a tool to promote your religion. The same thing goes for every other religion.

Did you get it that time?

[Gem]

Could the article point out where secular humanism is being taught in public schools?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Richard G
Educate yourself:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

I am getting the psychic thought that you will not respond to my post. Here goes anyways...

Read your website. Had to respond to these two excerpts:

>Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood >that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the >Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that >God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly >that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the >Bible as a source to form our government

Funny how in the Constitution they forgot to mention God. That is a lot of pages to not mention God, don't you think? And since the Constitution is the law of our land why do you think they left God out of it? Funny how many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Many were Deists. I suggest you educate yourself on the difference.

>If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a >proper moral base.

So if somehow God were proven not to exist you, Richard, would lose all your morals and start raping my wife and stealing my money. Somehow, I don't have much faith in the strength of your morals if the only thing holding you back from being a savage is belief in the Bible.

Lurker

[American]

"Estranged" is a better word than separated.... I heard they're dating again.

[Ladewig]

"Estranged" is a better word than separated.... I heard they're dating again

I disagree with your definition of dating. I would describe it more as one of them is violating a court order and should be charged with attempted assault.

[Suddenly]

Gee, and I thought 3 years of law school was enough. OK, lets read this thing.

God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld.

Of course there is no basis for the second sentence. The third sentence is not supported by the first two. Then it goes astray a bit.

Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Funny how the framers failed to mention this in the document they wrote. You think they'd have slipped something in there about the Bible.

Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

And this argues framer's intent how exactly? Not to mention post hoc ergo propter hoc. Plus I doubt it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
Educate yourself:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Hey, that site you posted is really cool. I picked up all sorts of handy hints

We must do everything within biblical and Constitutional law to stop the immoral influences of witchcraft from spreading in our community.


Its good to see richard is supporting this site. Without god fearing gun toting dudes like him we would have been overrun by witches years ago......

Look out richard...there's a witch behind you!!!! Lol......

Got any more fundie witchhunt sites you want to share with us?

[Ladewig]

In no particular order

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared._ It was this:_ "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."_ What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives?_ Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth._ The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum._ After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
Alot of things happened after 1961. There is however no evidence that they are directly or indirectly related to the removal of "this simple acknowledgement of God's protecting hand in our lives."



Non sequitur
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view._
Having one view be more prevalent than the others does not negate the possibility of a pluralistic society.



Straw man
Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."
The teacher was wrong and clearly had no knowledge of the law. Just because some pinhead in Omaha does something stupid is not evidence that Christians are being systematically persecuted.



Red herring
The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared._ It was this:_ "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
The wording of the prayer is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate. Hinduism has many sects and denominations as well. Here is a short, non-denominational prayer: "We recognize your power of all Dieties in our lives." Your repulsion at having all students listen to that prayer is equal to my repulsion at having student listen to your prayer.



Anecdotal evidence. Appeal to authority
They [secular humanists] believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself._ All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.
Just because something is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible does not make it wrong. The teachings of history may provide evidence that many people choose evil over goodness, but the author here is claiming that it is impossible for people "to have the potential to be good in and of themselves." A single instance of someone doing good without relying on religious teachings is counter-evidence to this proposition e.g. Mark Twain.


Argumentum ad antiquitatem
For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer._ If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?
Just because something has been a certain way for a long time does not make it right. The weakness of this argument can be seen by rephrasing it as "If the founding fathers didn't want slavery to be legalized, why did they own slaves," or "If the founding fathers didn't want to keep women out of politics, why did they prevent women from voting."



False dichotomy
Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
As the God I don't believe in is my witness, I wish with all my heart that I could reread this quote without hearing Robert Preston saying "Well, either you're cloooooosing your eyes To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge,
or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table in your community."



And yet, there is one part I agree with:
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England._ Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates._ They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience._ No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665._ Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.
Getting the government involved in religion produces undesireable results.

[rustypouch]

From the article:

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation.

Unfortunately (depending on your point of view) this is not the case.

There was a little something commonly known as the treaty of Tripoli, which states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

A full explaination can be found here. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm)

[Mr Manifesto]

Hey, Ladewig- where did the Robert Preston quote come from? I've only seen him in Blake Edwards movies and would like to see him doing something else. I figure if you can remember a quote of his, the movie must be good.

[T'ai Chi]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Non sequitur

Straw man

Red herring

Anecdotal evidence.

Appeal to authority

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

False dichotomy


Wah! Waahhh!

[Marvel Frozen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Wah! Waahhh!

Thank you for your well thought out response. It adds so much to this thread.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by rustypouch
There was a little something commonly known as the treaty of Tripoli...

A full explaination can be found here. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm)

Darn you, rusty. I had that page fired up in another browser window all ready to provide in my reply... then I saw your post. :( ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Wah! Waahhh! I don't get it. Are you mocking Ladewig that he is whining because he found so many valid logical/argumentative fallacies in the article or are you, yourself, crying because he found so many valid fallacies?

[Upchurch]

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. Where does this concept come from? Franklin and Jefferson were both deists, and Franklin only marginally so from what I've read.

edited to add: did ya ever notice that there is no reference to God or Jesus anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments? Maybe there was a reason for that...

[Ladewig]

Hey, Ladewig- where did the Robert Preston quote come from? I've only seen him in Blake Edwards movies and would like to see him doing something else. I figure if you can remember a quote of his, the movie must be good.


You are pulling my leg? The line comes from the song "Trouble" from Meredith Wilson's The Music Man (1962). Look for a young Ron Howard and enjoy the Oscar-winning score.

[Malachi151]

Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

No they haven't, crime rates are going down. Not only that , but prosecution of crimes has gone, way, way, way up. The majority of crimes prior to the 1950s when unreported and uninvestigated.

Then we have intigration in the 1960s, which has brought school performance down, but because of a racial issue, but because a group of people who had been kept down in America for oh... about 350 years, was finally getting an equal education for the first time, it takes time to make those changes.

Pre-meritcal sex has gone up because people get married at a later age. In the 1950s and before it was common for girls to be married by age 16. The origional age of consent in America was 10 years old until 1890, and it has continuesd to go up ever since.

A real problem is that with the deminishing role of religion in society nothing new is being allowed ot take its place because the religous people oppose real "competition". Religion is on the way out, but they DON'T teach secular humanism or any ohtr decent philosoply or or classes on ethics or anthing like that, becuase the religious people oppose it. That's the problem. Religion is uselss, but we aren't allowed to give kids useful tools to reaplce it, so it just leaves a void to be filled by the media.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."
-- John Adams

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

[c0rbin]

"He's a what? He's a what?"

[Ladewig]

O.K. let's look at what's being said another way.

The author provides evidence that in England, one religion became so dominate that people who disagreed in the slightest with the state-prescribed doctrine became outlaws or exiles. The author believes that it is necessary that his or her religion become the dominate view within the government- "There is no such thing as a pluralistic society._ There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another."

Once the author's views are realized, then the government will have the power to decide who can hold office (through religious oaths of office), what particular aspects of Bible morality will be taught in schools, which prayers school children will listen to, and which religious organizations will receive tax-free status and which will not.

Once all that happens, the stage will be set for the government having enough power to turn anyone who doesn't agree with the official interpretation of the Bible into outlaws or exiles.

At that point there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Tmy]

Your right its a myth. Now lets start taxing churches. We could use the money, and its not like we're "establishing" anything, we're treating churches just as we do anything else.

[Michael Redman]

I seem to remember the Church at the time of the Revolution teaching that the King ruled by Divine Right. By creating a government in which sovereignty flowed from the individual up to the government, and not from God down to the King, it seems to me that the Founders were implicitly rejecting religion, and instead adopting humanism, as the basis for governing authority.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I seem to remember the Church at the time of the Revolution teaching that the King ruled by Divine Right. By creating a government in which sovereignty flowed from the individual up to the government, and not from God down to the King, it seems to me that the Founders were implicitly rejecting religion, and instead adopting humanism, as the basis for governing authority. This is correct, and this fact often seems to be overlooked by those who assert that the USA is a "Christian Nation."

I would also recommend reading various works of Thomas Paine, in particular, "Common Sense" and "The Age of Reason." "The Age of Reason" is a treatise about Deism, which many of the Founders applied in their lives, and which is very critical of Christianity (but, contrary to claims of some Christians who have apparently never read it, is NOT a call to atheism).

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Where does this concept come from? Franklin and Jefferson were both deists, and Franklin only marginally so from what I've read.

edited to add: did ya ever notice that there is no reference to God or Jesus anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments? Maybe there was a reason for that... I certainly can't say that the authors of the Constitution intended the United States to be a Christian nation, but I can say that Jefferson was not directly involved in writing the Constitution. He was busy abroad replacing Franklin as Minister to France at the time. In the important political documents that Jefferson actually did write, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, of course, there are several references to God.

Madison drafted many important parts of the Constitution, including the First Amendment. He was Christian, but although other important documents he authored (such as the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments) do contain references to God, Madison obviously chose not to include any references to God in the final constitutional text.

[Tmy]

Did the Articles of Confederation mention Allah?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Where does this concept come from? Franklin and Jefferson were both deists, and Franklin only marginally so from what I've read.

edited to add: did ya ever notice that there is no reference to God or Jesus anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments? Maybe there was a reason for that...

not true,

have you ever read The Constitution Code by PygmyPlaidGiraffe?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Jesus lives is an obvious message that was cleverly written into this section of the Constitution. This affirms the founding fathers' dedication to a Christian nation.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No they haven't, crime rates are going down. Not only that , but prosecution of crimes has gone, way, way, way up. The majority of crimes prior to the 1950s when unreported and uninvestigated.

Then we have intigration in the 1960s, which has brought school performance down, but because of a racial issue, but because a group of people who had been kept down in America for oh... about 350 years, was finally getting an equal education for the first time, it takes time to make those changes.

Pre-meritcal sex has gone up because people get married at a later age. In the 1950s and before it was common for girls to be married by age 16. The origional age of consent in America was 10 years old until 1890, and it has continuesd to go up ever since.

A real problem is that with the deminishing role of religion in society nothing new is being allowed ot take its place because the religous people oppose real "competition". Religion is on the way out, but they DON'T teach secular humanism or any ohtr decent philosoply or or classes on ethics or anthing like that, becuase the religious people oppose it. That's the problem. Religion is uselss, but we aren't allowed to give kids useful tools to reaplce it, so it just leaves a void to be filled by the media.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."
-- John Adams

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

all very good points, and thanks for the quotes

As you have demonstated, social context and social changes have to be taken into account before making a correlation between say, the ceasing of the use of the Bible in curriculum and and changes in SAT scores.

[Malachi151]

quote of the day:

...ambiguous message that was cleverly written...

:D

[Checkmite]

I would have had something to say about this article, except it is apparent thus far that Richard G is unwilling to debate this issue with us. And why should he? After all, he didn't write the article.

Billiefan is the same way. He may start arguing, but after the fact he always has that "I didn't write it, how do you even know I agree with it?" to get himself out of the corner.

That's the problem with many so-called "believers" here - they start whole threads consisting of one link and nothing else, to an off-site article they think supports their positions; then, when the off-site article is destroyed, their belief does not suffer, because they had no real stake in that outside article. They are afraid to post their own beliefs for fear they'll be compromised, so they instead selflessly offer the beliefs of others to be sacrificed upon the altar of reason.

That is not debate. Further, it may be indicative of hypocrisy. Do you believe that these "link warriors" would disavow an article that we somehow couldn't refute? No way...they'd stick to that thing like grease on a grill.

There are exceptions of course - there are those who post single links to a joke site or a news article; I'm not talking about them. I speaking specifically of people who use nothing but a link to start a debate. I will no longer expend effort actually arguing issues with people who use such tactics.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
That's the problem with many so-called "believers" here - they start whole threads consisting of one link and nothing else, to an off-site article they think supports their positions; then, when the off-site article is destroyed, their belief does not suffer, because they had no real stake in that outside article. They are afraid to post their own beliefs for fear they'll be compromised, so they instead selflessly offer the beliefs of others to be sacrificed upon the altar of reason.

That is not debate. Further, it may be indicative of hypocrisy. Do you believe that these "link warriors" would disavow an article that we somehow couldn't refute? No way...they'd stick to that thing like grease on a grill.Perhaps we ought to coin a term for people who start threads, not to discuss or debate, but to see if they can get a rise out of others.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Upchurch

edited to add: did ya ever notice that there is no reference to God or Jesus anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments? Maybe there was a reason for that...
Someone should write a book about that (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039331524X/qid=1061319334/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8781863-6653646?v=glance&s=books)

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Brown
Perhaps we ought to coin a term for people who start threads, not to discuss or debate, but to see if they can get a rise out of others. "Billie-fanners".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Brown
Perhaps we ought to coin a term for people who start threads, not to discuss or debate, but to see if they can get a rise out of others.

I poropose that we refer to them as 'individual approxiamating the behavior of billiefan' or Billiefanatic for short. Runners up would be post and run, and NTW. :P

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That's the problem with many so-called "believers" here - they start whole threads consisting of one link and nothing else, to an off-site article they think supports their positions; then, when the off-site article is destroyed, their belief does not suffer, because they had no real stake in that outside article. They are afraid to post their own beliefs for fear they'll be compromised, so they instead selflessly offer the beliefs of others to be sacrificed upon the altar of reason.


I often think that when they post a link, the person is thinking "Alright, this is the smoking gun I've been waiting for. This is the one article that will show everyone the truth."

Of course, once said article is destroyed by the many critical thinkers on this board, the one who posted the article vanishes. Hmmm, I guess it wasn't quite the "smoking gun" they thought.

You can bet Richard G has read the posts in this thread, but considering the amount of critique his link has generated, I don't suspect he'll be back to defend the content.

Such tatics are lazy and ultimately pointless.

[Scorpy]

Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

First, not allowing Christians to pray in public does not violate their right to freely exercise their religion since their religion doesn't require them to pray in public. In fact, Jesus preached that Christians should pray in PRIVATE.

Second, the author seems to be claiming that since the SC ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion, and since Secular Humanism advocates strict separation of church and state, that separation of church and state must be considered a religious doctrine, making it unconstitutional for the government to enforce it. This creates an unresolvable dilema because if the government doesn't enforce separation of church and state, then Humanists can claim that their freedom of religion is being violated. You can't have it both ways.

[Scorpy]

Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

First, not allowing Christians to pray in public does not violate their right to freely exercise their religion since their religion doesn't require them to pray in public. In fact, Jesus preached that Christians should pray in PRIVATE.

Second, the author seems to be claiming that since the SC ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion, and since Secular Humanism advocates strict separation of church and state, that separation of church and state must be considered a religious doctrine, making it unconstitutional for the government to enforce it. This creates an unresolvable dilema because if the government doesn't enforce separation of church and state, then Humanists can claim that their freedom of religion is being violated. You can't have it both ways.

[jj]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hey, Ladewig- where did the Robert Preston quote come from? I've only seen him in Blake Edwards movies and would like to see him doing something else. I figure if you can remember a quote of his, the movie must be good.

Unh....

"Music Man", remember?

But you've got to know the territory!

[jj]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

------
Wah! Waahhh!
------
Thank you for your well thought out response. It adds so much to this thread.

It's just like his antagonistic, misleading posts in other threads. In various threads, he's trolled people who use Occam's Razor, he's played rhetorical-fun-and-games at me in the "blackout" thread by tossing straw men all over the yard, and now I see he simply makes fun of people whey they point out obvious logical flaws in an essay.

[jj]

Originally posted by c0rbin
"He's a what? He's a what?"
But it's different than it was!

[gnome]

Originally posted by Brown
Perhaps we ought to coin a term for people who start threads, not to discuss or debate, but to see if they can get a rise out of others.

I like to call it "Hit and run"... counting on exposure to an idea (and sometimes repetition) to influence people, but investing no effort to defending it, because that would subject it to scrutiny...

Scientologists do it too, by their doctrine one should never defend a point of view, only attack the doubter.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Richard G
Educate yourself:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Well, to cut through all the blather and state it in its simplest terms, We have seperation of Church And State because the Supreme Court says we do. Same reason that the 2nd Ammendment only applies to well regulated militias. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. You do not. Had you ever read it, you would know that.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. You do not. Had you ever read it, you would know that. Actually, the extent of the Supreme Court's role and powers in interpreting the Constitution is not obvious from simply reading the Contitution itself. It did not become clear until Marbury v. Madison (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/background.htm).

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


not true,

have you ever read The Constitution Code by PygmyPlaidGiraffe?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Jesus lives is an obvious message that was cleverly written into this section of the Constitution. This affirms the founding fathers' dedication to a Christian nation.

I've heard that if you play it backwards, you get your truck back, your wife back, your dog back and your momma out of jail.

[Brown]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Oh, no! "Jesus lives in Seattle!?" (At first, I thought it might say, "Jesus lives in South Park.")

[Bentspoon]

I get so tired of this BS.

The Process:

Post very controversial stupidity rehashing the same old fallacious "reasoning", then run like hell and don't answer the posts it has generated.

Richard G must be learning at the School of BillieFan.

What do you want Richard - an American Theocracy.

Oh sorry, you're in BF class

Bentspoon

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Actually, the extent of the Supreme Court's role and powers in interpreting the Constitution is not obvious from simply reading the Contitution itself. It did not become clear until Marbury v. Madison (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/background.htm).

Thank you for your insight!

[King of the Americas]

An open letter to all of those who support having a religious monument in a State building:

I would like to start by saying that 'I' am on God's side of this issue.

Secondly, I would like to suggest that those who support having a religious monument in a State Building have been misled.

The concept of Separation of Church & State was for the benefit of the believers. 'I' don't want MY BELIEF in God to be used to garner favor and support in institutions and buildings that clearly do not support and uphold God's Law.

By placing "God" on a whore house, you aren't going to change what goes on inside, you are just going to water down that which God truly represents and would stand for.

I know, that Our Country has adopted "God" into their motto, and emblazoned the word and image of God onto almost EVERY monument, building, or wall possible but that doesn't mean God supports ANY of those who built these things, the buildings themselves, or the people who use them.

I want the State to stop using MY BELIEF in God to garner support to their ill-conceived works, institutions, and causes.

A King is the very institution of Church & State working as one. The King says, "I am God's authority here on earth. Everything I say and do is of God, and with his authority." Americans disagreed with this stance, and we figured out that the King was just a man, who was quite fallible. Therefore, we concluded that to combine a 'perfect entity in God', with a most ‘imperfect entity in government created by the hands of man’ would be a farce.

Now, I am not saying we shouldn’t strive for our governments to be more Godly. We SHOULD be more loving, forgiving, and understanding. We SHOULD think of the common welfare and safety of everyone. However, to say NOW that God is working actively with, in, and around 'state ran government'...

Well, I just don't see it.

I think the believers in Montgomery and the rest of America have been doped. God is NOT in the Pentagon, and he does NOT support War. His last messenger (Jesus Christ) said NOT to use violence to achieve your goals. And yet, these believers are supporting putting "God" on things most ungodly…

Herein lies the argument that NEEDS to be put forward:

God- Perfect, Good, in need of no change

Government by the Hands of Men- NOT perfect, inefficient, and in need of much repair and revision

These two entities are NOT alike, and have completely different agendas. Never shall the two be joined, and when it happens it is never good for the believers.

Put "God" on a building, and it will serve only to disarm your ability to question the motives of those inside. All that they need do is walk over to said monument and say, "Look, God is here and supports whatever we do, can't you see the monument!?"

Personally, I find it sad that so many are willing to have their private, personal relationship with their spiritual God USED and even ABUSED by those in government to build confidence in institutions that clearly don't support God, his laws, or his commands.

"God" belongs on a church, and in your hearts. NOT in a state owned and operated building.

[gnome]

Bravo!!! Can we use this in the 10 commandments monument thread?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
An open letter to all of those who support having a religious monument in a State building:

I would like to start by saying that 'I' am on God's side of this issue.

Secondly, I would like to suggest that those who support having a religious monument in a State Building have been misled.

The concept of Separation of Church & State was for the benefit of the believers.
....
snip

.........

"God" belongs on a church, and in your hearts. NOT in a state owned and operated building.

:clap:

very well put, straight forward and eloquent

[King of the Americas]

Thank you very much.

I am working very hard to get THIS argument into the National Debate.