Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,362 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,910,469
Pageviews Today: 2,647,357Threads Today: 646Posts Today: 12,355
08:17 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

*** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?

 
ThePatriotMind
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 09:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
*** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
I WELCOME any and all debate on this of an opposing view ... I DO NOT THINK any of you of an opposing viewpoint that can beat me in an intellectual debate on the subject at all ... I await the AD Hominem attacks but would prefer real debate form intelectuals......

I believe in SEVERAL TRUTHS in relation to this topic:

1.) Christianity has been intentionally stamped out at every possible turn for over the past 60 years in AMerica..

2.) I believe and feel I CAN PROVE our framers did not intend or envision an AMERICA WITHOUT CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES GUIDING HER JOURNEY...

3.) I BELEIVE THAT THE US HAS TURNED INTO A JUDICIALOCRACY
with the unelected federal and state judges determining
our path instead of we the people

4.) I BELEIVE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE was and IS BAD CASE LAW AS IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED THE LAST 60 years and furthermore it is being used as a tool to actually build upon the REAL INTENDED AND DESIRED RELIGION OF THE STATE ....

THE WORDS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE are neither in our Declaration of Independence or our constitution - MOST DONT EVEN KNOW THIS!!! if our founders wanted it in there they would have PUT IT IN THERE !!!! PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION!!

----------------------------------

THAT RELIGION IS IRRELIGION .... which IMHO WILL help lead to a bastardization of some SOCIAL FASCIST CORPORATE state that ultimately tries to enslave us all and destroy our entire constitution....


THE RELIGION OF IRRELIGION HAS ROOTED ITSELF DEEP in our society now .... and for this religion being shoved down everyone's throat there is no separation of church and state ...


Irreligion is a lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion. Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, deism, agnosticism, skepticism, freethought, or secular humanism.

Irreligious people may have convictions equal in depth to those of religious adherents. For instance, followers of the life stance of Humanism regard themselves as just as deeply believing in their life stance as corresponding to any religious belief.



---------------------------------------------------

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.


The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.


-----------------------------------------------

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.

Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.

Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."

Our national anthem mentions God.

The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.

The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.

Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.

The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

----------------------------------------------------
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
ThePatriotMind  (OP)

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 09:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
heh is there not one anti christian / separation of church and state guy / gal out there that can debate what I have stated

/boo

I was hoping to debate this for a bit with someone ... o well guess guess ill go tend to some work i need to do for a bit ... be back later

:P
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
canislatrans

User ID: 516342
United States
11/28/2008 09:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
canislatrans

User ID: 516342
United States
11/28/2008 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
ThePatriotMind  (OP)

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 09:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson
 Quoting: canislatrans


that quote is more of a sticks and stones my breakl my bones ...

your still not debating my issue that irreligion has become and more evidently so the "STATE RELIGION"
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/28/2008 09:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
The term "separation of church and state" is from the constitution of the Soviet Union.

The first amendment requires that congress make no law respexting an establishment of religion or prohiting the free exercise thereof. Note two things. First the prohibition applies to congress and not the states. Second it applies to estblishments of religion. In essence, the first amendment was intended to prevent congress from legislating a prohibition against a particular denomination or, in these modern days, a synogogue, mosque, or ashram or whatever. They wanted to leave it to the states as to which religion or religions they would allow at a state level. A perfect example of this today is the Swiss Canton system where each Canton is free to choose its own religion. Under the U.S. constitution each state could adopt say, Catholicism, Southern Baptism, or even atheism as the "state religion" or they could allow a plurality of relgions or say prohibit Islam or Judaism or Christianity and allow the other religions to be practiced. I suppose California could adopt Satanism as the state religion or at least allow it for San Francisco.

This went wrong in the Supreme Court's broad application of the 14th amendment to religious freedom when it was intended to apply to prevent laws affecting the freed slaves after the civil war. It was also wrongly applied to justify federal intervention into many other realms as well for which it was never intended to be applied.

The upshot is that you now have the very thing that the framers intended to prohibit. A single angry atheist can now dictate the entire religious component of the public education system through getting a favorable court to engage in judicial legslation once the 14th ammendment was stretched beyond its applicability to include religion within its orbit.

The original intent was that the majority of the people within a given locale could have the freedom to decide how their taxpayer money should be spent educating their children. When I was growing up there certainly would have been no challenge to a teacher bringing a bible to class and they were certainly not inclined to "spare the rod" and would beat your ass black and blue if you got out of line.

Now, peoples taxpayer money is appropriated and used to teach their children the doctrines of devils.

The reimposition of the original intent would lead to mass migrations as the majority in each area might make the teaching of the dominant reliogion a part of the educational system and have religious displays in public buildings and might even be so bold as to impose a tithe tax as they do in certain European countries.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 523705
Austria
11/28/2008 09:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
church and state

translates into

BS to control people with fear and state

I wont debate believing christians just as I wont debate red nosed clowns.

If you mean church and state as the opposite to atheists and state then that would be a complete different subject.
canislatrans

User ID: 516342
United States
11/28/2008 09:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
your still not debating my issue that irreligion has become and more evidently so the "STATE RELIGION"
 Quoting: ThePatriotMind



You should reread the First Amendment.
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
ThePatriotMind  (OP)

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 09:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
church and state

translates into

BS to control people with fear and state

I wont debate believing christians just as I wont debate red nosed clowns.

If you mean church and state as the opposite to atheists and state then that would be a complete different subject.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 523705



Irreligion is fast becoming the chosen religion of the STATE ... I see no difference between irreligion and religion for this purpose
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
ThePatriotMind  (OP)

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 09:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
your still not debating my issue that irreligion has become and more evidently so the "STATE RELIGION"



You should reread the First Amendment.
 Quoting: canislatrans


The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

anything else beyond that is interpretation by unelected judges our our judicialocracy we now live in ...

AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD RE READ THE LAST PART OF THAT ....


or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 559330
United States
11/28/2008 09:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
The way I understand it is this. The US Government entity cannot establish a national religion.. like Islam or The Church of England.

However the states can... like Utah. ( 10 amendment stuff)

This was to keep religious leaders ( like the POPE) from running political affairs like he did in England.. before the Church of England was established.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/28/2008 10:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
The original configuration of states in the US contained many formed from the emigration from Europe of people of a particlar religious persuasion such as Maryland which was predominantly catholic. There was fear that an unrestrained congress might legislate against a particular religion or establish a specific denomination as the U.S. denomination and prohibit. There is certainly no prohibition against congress establishing a religious display in the captiol or having the ceremonies opened by a shaman. But they could not force anyone else much less the state legislatures to do the same.

The Supreme Court could be taken over by a Muslim majority and this decide that amputation of a limb as punishment for stealing was neither cruel nor unusual in violation of the eighth amendment.

It really doesn't matter what form of government you have, its the people that run it that is the key issue. Granted the framers tried to put constraints in recognition of a realpolitik nature of man, these constraints were circumvented through expediency in times of crisis. Most of the government according to my constituional law professor who studied under Scalia is unconstitutional. When FDR had congress pass the "new deal" legislation the Supreme Court struck it down as being obviously uncostitutional. But FDR threatened to change the number of justices to 15 from 9 and appoint the remainder as freindly to his legislation. Thus, the Supreme Courrt yielded and no longer deemed his legislation as unconstitutional the so called "switch in time that saved nine."

If anything the brilliant document illustrates how well educated they were and how thoroughly the framers understood human nature . What passes for debate in todays congress sounds more an exchange between mafiosos and underbosses about how an illegally obtained jackpot should be split up in comparison.

I would metnion that heaven itself is not a democracy but a dictatorship which illustrates my point that its not the system but the person in charge that determines the character of the place.

Finally, you can't force people to be Christian. Its a decision they must make and they must have freedom of choice to make it. Under the orignal consitution that freedom would be expressed in their ability to move to a locale where enough like minded people were present that the laws and the education system would reflect their own personal persuasion and not that of a lone individual that got a favorable court 2000 miles away to see it his way.
ThePatriotMind  (OP)

User ID: 519678
United States
11/28/2008 10:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
just for clarification I am not supporting nor dis supporting christianity ....

for the purposes of this thread


I am merely pointing out that imho the speration of church and state was taken to the extreme and added to CASE LAW by unelected judges from the basis of a letter jefferson sent to another ... if jefferson wanted it in the constitution I DARE SAY HE WOULD HAVE GOT IT .... as we have it today


MY big poroblem is the supllantation of IRRELIGION AS WHAT SEEMS to be THE NEW NATIONAL RELIGION ...


and that in and of itself goes against separation of church and state if we are going to use jeffersons letter as being law in the usa instead of the constitution itself
Fighting and triggering liberals and SJW's in the trenches of their safe spaces since 2014

Signed,

The Patriot Mind
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/28/2008 10:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
I think a similar issue is gay marriage. The constituion has no opinion on how marraige is defined and this under the 10th amendment it would be up to the states. A state could presumably make gay marriage legal for the entire state or in particular area. Under the full faith and credit clause this would normaly require other states to recognize the legality however, since one state might consider it illegal and the other legal it would be improper to force the state whose residents consider it illegal to recognize it. The problem might occur in areas like social secuirty eligibility or pension entitlement for say a Delaware corporation. The answer would be that the federal government would recognize the state definition, but one could not require a private corporation to do so as that would be their decision. However, if the corporation were chartered in a particlar locale that did recognize gay marriage it would be acceptable to legislate that they recognize it in their benefits. I think this is much like what San Francisco does. You have a similar issue in recognizing foreign marriages. Say a sheik came to Detroit and worked for 10 years to earn social secuirity and then brought his four wives over to whom he was legally married, does the SSA have to pay benefits to each one. Its a real tough issue and and one that the framers I am sure never contemplated in their wildest speculations. Of course if you could get a 3/4 makority of the states to approve and amendment one way or another that would be pretty definitive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558993
United States
11/28/2008 10:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
I believe the worship of Pele should be reinstated as the state religion of Hawaii and unbelievers should be beheaded!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/28/2008 10:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
just for clarification I am not supporting nor dis supporting christianity ....

for the purposes of this thread


I am merely pointing out that imho the speration of church and state was taken to the extreme and added to CASE LAW by unelected judges from the basis of a letter jefferson sent to another ... if jefferson wanted it in the constitution I DARE SAY HE WOULD HAVE GOT IT .... as we have it today


MY big poroblem is the supllantation of IRRELIGION AS WHAT SEEMS to be THE NEW NATIONAL RELIGION ...


and that in and of itself goes against separation of church and state if we are going to use jeffersons letter as being law in the usa instead of the constitution itself
 Quoting: ThePatriotMind


I believe you are absolutely correct. The fremers were attmepting to prohibit a catholic pope, but once the Supreme Court usurped the congressional prerogative and made itself into a defacto legistlative branch, we got an atheist pope instead.

On the first day of my constitutional law class my professor said candidly that consitional law has very little to do with the constitution.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 559330
United States
11/28/2008 10:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
I believe you are absolutely correct. The fremers were attmepting to prohibit a catholic pope, but once the Supreme Court usurped the congressional prerogative and made itself into a defacto legistlative branch, we got an atheist pope instead.

On the first day of my constitutional law class my professor said candidly that consitional law has very little to do with the constitution.

*******

Must have been Obama
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/28/2008 11:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
I believe the worship of Pele should be reinstated as the state religion of Hawaii and unbelievers should be beheaded!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558993


The worship of Pele as the state religion of Hawaii would be permissible in my opinion under the first amendment constitution, but beheading would run afoul of the eigth amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment - at least I would hope unless the Supreme Court were stacked with Pele worshippers that believed in beheading that is.
422730
User ID: 561165
Australia
11/28/2008 11:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
From a point of view, it is impossible to separate "church" and state in the sense that the head of state will always symbolize the accepted baseline norm to the consensus of reality. The spiritual beliefs of the head or lack thereof are still beliefs. State law is an extension of spiritual laws.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 554933
United States
11/28/2008 11:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
The "founding fathers" were mostly Freemasons. As such, they believed in a Creator and also believed that every person was free to have any other religious beliefs they cared to. This being the case, it is reasonable to accept the common interpretation of the first amendment, namely that it forbids the establishment of any federal or state religion and leaves all free to worship unmolested as they choose.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 544317
United States
11/29/2008 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: *** PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION *** SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE .... DO we really have it ? Was it designed this way?
The "founding fathers" were mostly Freemasons. As such, they believed in a Creator and also believed that every person was free to have any other religious beliefs they cared to. This being the case, it is reasonable to accept the common interpretation of the first amendment, namely that it forbids the establishment of any federal or state religion and leaves all free to worship unmolested as they choose.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 554933


Actually, the constitution only prohibits congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This has been grossly and erroneously misinterpreted by the Court to make an "establishment of religion" which was simply a general description of churches and synogogues to apply to eny governmental expression of religion. Under the constitution the congress could build its own chapel or hold religious revival services in the senate chambers if it wanted to. They just couldn't dictate any prohibition on any churches or other "establishments of religion" that might be present in the states. The religious pursasion of the founders is actually irrelevant to their intention of freedom. I'm sure they never contemplated Satanists or Rastafarians, but the original intent is broad enough to allow them religious freedom, and congress culd hold Rastafarian rituals if it so chose, they just could not prohibit Southern Baptists from engaging in their worship or force them to adopt Rastafarianism.





GLP