'The Irony Is Delicious..'

see4

see4

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
I don't get this, are you concerned about Islam or something?
Click to expand...
Seriously? You seriously don't get why there should be separation of church and state? Have you read the constitution? How about the cliff notes?

Ohhh, you were just being silly. My bad. I thought you were serious.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Who is the arbiter of 'fact' ?
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't understand the words arbiter and fact? And I'm not sure why you put quotes around the word fact as if a fact was subjective. It is not. Nor does it need an individual to validate its truthiness. You're being silly.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Seriously? You seriously don't get why there should be separation of church and state? Have you read the constitution? How about the cliff notes?

Ohhh, you were just being silly. My bad. I thought you were serious.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, can you link me the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution please? I can quote TJ's "wall of separation" a decade after ratification. I bet you can do better.

Lets remember you mission statement from a moment ago. Where in Politics today, specifically do you see religion directly influence policy. Religion, not simply morality or what one feels is morally derived without citing Religion.

Please say abortion and mention the Constitution again, that would be great.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Oh I see, can you link me the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution please? I can quote TJ's "wall of separation" a decade after ratification. I bet you can do better.

Lets remember you mission statement from a moment ago. Where in Politics today, specifically do you see religion directly influence policy. Religion, not simply morality or what one feels is morally derived without citing Religion.

Please say abortion and mention the Constitution again, that would be great.
Click to expand...
"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] ”
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[3][4][5][6]

Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood, climate change, ban on Muslims, forcing children to pledge allegiance, mandating christmas depictions and bible statues in front of state buildings and the list goes on.

We can't have an honest debate if you can't be honest with yourself. So instead of huffing and puffing and not actually saying anything, how about you come to me with facts and information that I can absorb, not snide bullshit that is completely baseless.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Must you be such a smug prick? The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state. That's why the last sentence of your wiki quote is there, with footnotes.

Muslims are the only Religious people that have a Political system as part of their Religious world view. That's why I asked the original question.

Can you use your own actual words and cite how Religion, is currently influencing Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood, climate change, ban on Muslims, forcing children to pledge allegiance ect? Not not their morality mind you.
Click to expand...
You're right, I don't need to be such a prick when responding. I just find some of the stuff you [and others] say to be rather repulsive and an insult to common sense.

Religious people think that life begins at the moment of conception. Scientists and science disagree.
Planned Parenthood is supposed to be a safe place for young people and people with little resources to get the help they need beyond just abortions, the religious right have lied and cried wolf so much about PP, that people don't know the truth.
Religious zealots along with climate deniers are fighting a losing battle when debating climate change, so the only recourse they have is to stone wall the debate and lie to get politicians in office to stop the movement. It's a shame really.
Ban on Muslims. I think that speaks for itself.
Pledge of Allegiance, et al, I think also speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
nitro harley said:
I belly will start hurting by then. LOL
Click to expand...
If you're the only one in the room laughing, it's probably not that funny. I really wish I could share your enthusiasm, but I'm concerned for the welfare of dozens of millions of Americans who will suffer under the Trump fascist regime. I really hope I'm wrong.
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
What is absolutely Hillary-ous about that is what the definition of being "conservative" means. You'd think if Hillary were like Bush-Cheney, that they'd vote for her, because they don't like change. I mean that's the point of conservatism, not liking change.

The Republican party is no longer conservative. Period. They are Evangelical, they are Capitalists, they are Opportunists and really don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. That is not conservatism, that is narcissism. President Trump, Narcissist in Chief.
Click to expand...




That's why I never understood the extreme hatred for her by the right, she's one of them. I know why I hate her, I couldn't understand why they hated her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top