Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Trickle Down?Follow

#202 Feb 09 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Ahkuraj wrote:
Would you say it's no particular hardship if this were a thread about recent laws in some states requiring the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?


No, because the separation of church and state is written into our law. It's not the same issue.
#203REDACTED, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 11:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bizzaro,
#204 Feb 09 2009 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
dupeeconqr wrote:
bizzaro,

You do realize that the words "separation between church and state" never appear in the constution aren't you?

No, but the phrase "Freedom of Religion" does, meaning that the government can not become involved in any one religion. It's implied, but you have to have an ounce of common sense to make the connection.
#205REDACTED, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 11:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It says freedom of not freedom from. Do you see the difference?
#206 Feb 09 2009 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
dupeeconqr wrote:
It says freedom of not freedom from. Do you see the difference?

If the government had an official religion, and mandated that articles of that religion be displayed and integrated into parts of government-provided services and institutes, then the people under that government would have no choice but to be subjected to that religion.
#207 Feb 09 2009 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
dupeeconqr wrote:
bizzaro,

You do realize that the words "separation between church and state" never appear in the constution aren't you?

No, but the phrase "Freedom of Religion" does, meaning that the government can not become involved in any one religion. It's implied, but you have to have an ounce of common sense to make the connection.


To further that, Jefferson himself, in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, mentions that the first Amendment means just that.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.


I do believe that's where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually came from.
#208 Feb 09 2009 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Thomas Jefferson was clearly a terrorist.
#209REDACTED, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#210 Feb 09 2009 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
dupeeconqr wrote:
Tulip,

You realize that was just Jeffersons opinion don't you? But by and large I do agree with the concept. My biggest pet peeve is attacking someone because they choose to express their religious views, whatever they may be within reason.
Part of my religion says I'm supposed to attack other people's religious views. Stop suppressing my Constitutional rights. Smiley: mad

Also: Just Jefferson's opinion? The opinion of the man who helped draft the document in question?

Edited, Feb 9th 2009 2:06pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#211 Feb 09 2009 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
dupeeconqr wrote:
Tulip,

You realize that was just Jeffersons opinion don't you? But by and large I do agree with the concept. My biggest pet peeve is attacking someone because they choose to express their religious views, whatever they may be within reason.


Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't take the opinion of what the words mean from the guy who wrote it, that'd just be silly...
#212REDACTED, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 12:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#213 Feb 09 2009 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
dupeeconqr wrote:
Tulip,

There's a difference between his opinion and what you believe his opinion to be. If this were such an important issue to him he would have written quite a bit more on the subject no? You're completely misinterpreting the meaning of that letter and who it was addressed to.


Am I? Or are you making up what he means on your own and supplying it because it fits into your agenda more nicely than the truth does?

I don't see how I can be misinterpreting him when he clearly stated that the reson for the mention of religion in the first amendment was to build a wall of separation between church and state. Seems pretty damn clear to me.

#214 Feb 09 2009 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
dupeeconqr wrote:
It says freedom of not freedom from. Do you see the difference?



You know, you're right. This post has really enlightened me as to the error of my ways. Well, love to chat and talk about fallacious statements some more, but I'm off to go teach a public classroom all about Kali, YHVH, the Tao, the Ten Thousand Spirits of Shinto, Confucian values with regards to Heaven and the Earth, teach the controversy of the celestial teapot and of unicorns, and maybe have a minute left over to edge in empirical evidence for evolution.
#215REDACTED, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 1:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#216 Feb 09 2009 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
dupeeconqr wrote:
Tulip,

The first sentence of that paragraph clearly identifies the existence of God. It's quite clear that Jefferson was more concerned with government establishing a religion rather than a peoples right to express their own religious viewpoints. Again how much was written on this topic at the time?


Do you understand that you can say, "Everyone can express their own religious viewpoints and believe in whatever god they choose" and "The government will not endorse those viewpoints" can be said with the one simple phrase, "Separation of Church and State?" It's like you just want to take one half of what that means and apply it across the board.

I have no idea how much was written on this topic at the time. I didn't live then, I do now. But the fact that this letter exists to explain what he meant when he wrote the bill that later became the first amendment tells me that there was some discussion about it.

Edited, Feb 9th 2009 3:10pm by Belkira
#217 Feb 09 2009 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
**
291 posts

BizzaroStormy wrote:


Ahkuraj wrote:
Would you say it's no particular hardship if this were a thread about recent laws in some states requiring the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?


No, because the separation of church and state is written into our law. It's not the same issue.


So when you say "no" you're saying that these laws present no particular hardship? Wouldn't your answer actually imply that it is a particular hardship? Isn't it a hardship when states enact laws that violate your concept of the separation of the church and state?

#218 Feb 09 2009 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
So when you say "no" you're saying that these laws present no particular hardship? Wouldn't your answer actually imply that it is a particular hardship? Isn't it a hardship when states enact laws that violate your concept of the separation of the church and state?



Define hardship and you will answer your own question.
#219 Feb 09 2009 at 7:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BizzaroStormy wrote:
Ahkuraj wrote:
Would you say it's no particular hardship if this were a thread about recent laws in some states requiring the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?


No, because the separation of church and state is written into our law. It's not the same issue.


So are the rights to "life, liberty, and property", yet that doesn't seem to deter you at all, does it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Feb 09 2009 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
BizzaroStormy wrote:
Ahkuraj wrote:
Would you say it's no particular hardship if this were a thread about recent laws in some states requiring the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?


No, because the separation of church and state is written into our law. It's not the same issue.


So are the rights to "life, liberty, and property", yet that doesn't seem to deter you at all, does it?


Either argue against the law or don't. Meandering around the law and creating loopholes so as to functionally ignore it in executive practice isn't legitimate from any point of observation, George.
#221gbaji, Posted: Feb 09 2009 at 8:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I have already. I believe that if we're going to fund education for the citizens, we should do so via some form of voucher system. Essentially adjust just for the fact that not everyone will be able to afford to send their own children to a school of their choice by correcting just that one problem and nothing else.
#222 Feb 09 2009 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Gee. We're not *actually* infringing on the right of a parent to send their child to a school that teaches religion, but we're going to take money from them in the form of taxes, and then spend it on a "free" education for them, but one that can't teach their religion.


Why is it a parent's right to send their child to a school that conforms to their own views?

Rather, I should ask, why is it their right to deny their children exposure to other paradigms by choosing such an environment?

Edited, Feb 9th 2009 9:16pm by BizzaroStormy
#223 Feb 09 2009 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
The creation of the public school system is exactly the sort of "meandering around the law and creating loopholes" you complain about. Gee. We're not *actually* infringing on the right of a parent to send their child to a school that teaches religion, but we're going to take money from them in the form of taxes, and then spend it on a "free" education for them, but one that can't teach their religion.


Public school should be mandatory. You, as a citizen of the country are part of this country, no matter how much you may try to pretend that you can try living alone and isolated in a little world of your own and subsisting on your vegetable garden, you can't. The ideal of liberty simply isn't possible, and the best we can come up with is something like mills harm principle to justify our infringements of liberty.

Point though, is that you, as a citizen have to the individuals whom have collectively raised you (society, NOT your parents) an obligation to participate in that society, and that means conforming to the general quality of knowledge within that society.

We don't have to outlaw private schools, rather they should be an optional addition to a standard state sponsored curriculum, the curriculum of which of course is decided by the collective democratic process of the people.
#224 Feb 09 2009 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We're not *actually* infringing on the right of a parent to send their child to a school that teaches religion, but we're going to take money from them in the form of taxes, and then spend it on a "free" education for them, but one that can't teach their religion.
Well, you're correct that this, in no way, infringes upon their freedom to practice their religion if that's what you were trying to say.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225 Feb 10 2009 at 3:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

We're not *actually* infringing on the right of a parent to send their child to a school that teaches religion, but we're going to take money from them in the form of taxes, and then spend it on a "free" education for them, but one that can't teach their religion.


Sort of how we don't *actually* infringe on the right of people to drive cars through flaming hoops by not including flaming hoops on roads built with tax dollars?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#226REDACTED, Posted: Feb 10 2009 at 6:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pensive,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 317 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)