Breaking the shackles of faith

[SW85]

If America is so minded it could completely, and irrevocably, end once and for all the idea that church and state have the right to co-exist.

No one is capable of ending "ideas," only the practical applications of those ideas.

Gramatically, your sentence suggests you are advocating the abolition of either the church or the state. Which is it? And how will it promote the freedom you think we yanks lack?

As is clearly stated in the bible all chrisitans must give to Ceaser what is Ceaser etc, and the constitution also states irrafuteably that church & state must be seperated.

The Bible says to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. This is not an endorsement of separation of church and state but of the idea, then alien to Judaism, then while the true nation of all Christians is Heaven, they have patriotic obligations on earth, as well.

And the Constitution does not articulate "irrefutably" the separation of church and state. This is an inventive reading of the "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" clause.

Why then are the religious nut jobs determined to turn the law on its head, and make the rest of the country suffer a '1000 year reich' of christian oppression?

You offer no examples of what oppression you're talking about so no logical refutation can be provided. How convenient for you.

Your use of the "thousand year reich" is pretty creative. Hitler himself publicly professed adherence to an odd and highly revisionist brand of Christianity that virtually everyone in the world at the time rejected (it pained Jesus as a crusader against Jews, rather than, y'know, a Jew himself).

Ultimately only a citizen wide backlash against the this fascism will work, but the media will not act for fear of their sponsorship being taken away by corporate america - where are the brave and the free? Where are the John Brown's and Luther Kings of this day and age?

I've always found it ironic that liberals can label "fascist" the relatively comical forces of American Christiandom while they shy away from insulting the infinitely more barbaric brand of Islam practiced worldwide.

As far as fascism is concerned America has done a pretty good job of turning itself into a far right nation - yes there are voices of descent, but they are drowned out by the GOP's desire to cling onto power. We in the UK watch on in horror as the democrats meekly give in to their demands, and unless there is a mass awakening then the country is sleep walking (or rather sitting on the sofa thinking about walking) its way into oblivion.

You're still not providing any examples to back up your hysterical and increasingly extreme accusations. Is this what passes for debate/discussion in the infinitely-more-free UK?

This extends to religion as no out and out atheist has ever been president of the union - theist maybe, but never publically atheist.

This is due in no small part to the fact that no publically atheistic man has ever run for President, to the best of my knowledge. And this is probably due, again, to the fact that very few Americans are atheists.

Actually the world we live in is based on the antithisis of your very religion. America has survived in spite of the claptrap espoused by all denominations of biblical nonsense (including the mormons). Indeed everytime some jumped up preacher or GOP grandee has tried to make the nation a 'better' place he has been slapped down - Lincoln may have been republican, but he sure acted like a modern democrat.

What do you mean by this? In terms of policy? Lincoln was an avowed segregationist.

In terms of religious fervor? His was comparatively modest. But it was certainly there.

And uh, again, you're still not actually saying anything substantial in terms of what policies are rendering Americans "unfree."

Actualy I am chosing not to answer, because as has previously been pointed out the 1st ten ammendments are wide open to intepretation.

Indeed, but that's not what you said earlier, which was that the Constitution irrefutably articulated a separation of church and state. Are you now conceding that you are wrong?

A man of faith can be president, but a man can not be a president invoking faith - that is the point I really wanted to make.

Sure he can. He has as much right to be vocal about his religious beliefs as any other American. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

"Separation of church and state" implies only that the government is the sole law-making and law-enforcing body of the nation. It carries no other implications. It does not suggest that the government cannot make laws that are motivated by religious beliefs, and it certainly does not suggest that government officials cannot justify policies they'd like passed on the basis of religious beliefs.

For all the constenation that people have over atheism, one only has to look at the fact that prayers in schools are banned, and that religious people can not overtly promote religion in schools or through public office. America is the epitome of the idea that a man can has his faith, but the state has to been utterly sanguine and ignorant of that faith.

Really? Because not long ago you said that we were on the long and bumpy road to church-mandated fascism and nothing short of revolution could save us.

Harry Truman once observed that to be successful in American politics you need to pour religion on your politics like ketchup on food.

Harry Truman was President during a vastly different time in American history.

Religion is everywhere in America. Few ever question it publically. If a politician says they're an atheist, their political career is over.

Hardly. There are several, including at least one Congressman.

And even if it were true, why is it a bad thing? In a democracy, people have the right to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

Hense why I argued that you need to break the shackles of faith - it enslaves you, and makes for a highly irrational political elite. At least here in the UK we have the decency to keep personal faith seperate from acts of state - Tony Blair and his cabinet all have their own faiths in private, but very rarely let it interfere with good governance.

Incidentally, many of the Democratic Presidents that you mentioned were not only fairly open about their faith but justified policies using them, as well. You're using religion to criticize policies you don't like, then saying anyone who points out that fact is an irrational sleepwalking sheep. And you still haven't told us what the policies are that you dislike so strongly. Are they even policies? Or are they just frames of mind and attitudes?

Ad hominum attacks against me will not resolve the fact that religions blind their devotees to their rhotoric

First of all, it's "ad hominem" and "rhetoric."

Second, you've been tossing about ad hominem since the first post in this silly thread.

Third, no, they don't. Case in point: I am religious. I converted to Protestantism several years ago after having been raised by an atheist father and a weird neopagan mother.

And fourth, if religions blind, then this is equally true of atheism, for which there is equally insufficient proof of its conclusions (and for which the burden of proof is even higher because it claims to know while proper religious adherence ought to claim only to believe), and which has its own set of explanations, leaders, and demonization of "heathens."

No its not, its a lack of faith.

It is not a lack of faith, it is faith in the lack of a god.

no, because we have no religious rhetoric to bind us - we are simply able to explore all paths, and find one which suites ourselves.

Uh, no, not really. It is as dogmatic as any religion. What you described is simply spirituality generally, not atheism specifically; people explore it and arrive at a conclusion.

What you then proceed to describe as atheism is, in fact, agnosticism.

There's blunt then theres the 'so far right that the sun don't shine' blunt - you, sir, need to get some manners, and learn that not everyone on this fair planet of ours appreciates your 'blund' speach.

Again, you've hardly basis to criticize others' behavior given the deplorable extremism and infantile rudeness you've demonstrated since the first page of this thread.

 

[DrWho]

If America is so minded it could completely, and irrevocably, end once and for all the idea that church and state have the right to co-exist. As is clearly stated in the bible all chrisitans must give to Ceaser what is Ceaser etc, and the constitution also states irrafuteably that church & state must be seperated. Why then are the religious nut jobs determined to turn the law on its head, and make the rest of the country suffer a '1000 year reich' of christian oppression?

Is it because the rest of the citizens are like sheep, and are afraid to break away from the flock, or is it that the average citizen is more than comfortable in their own sty, and feel that it is needless to go wallow in their neighbours? Ultimately only a citizen wide backlash against the this fascism will work, but the media will not act for fear of their sponsorship being taken away by corporate america - where are the brave and the free? Where are the John Brown's and Luther Kings of this day and age?

Just because you hate some group of people and don't understand their ideas does not mean that you should just go around talking about consititutional ideas you don't understand either.

 

[top gun]

You're in complete denial sublime in every way and in everything you've done regarding this post. Once again, you're being dishonest and are either trying to defend yourself or think you can take people for fools. At least you are doing it in a very mundane way with haste and not trying to cleverly hide your agenda like before. But that is a lie and you are an evil, despicable man. If you attempt to refute this in defense, it is also a lie because of your own dishonest, destructive actions already permeated.

Okaaaaaaaaaaay... Maybe a cruise wouldn't be quite enough. Maybe a nice relaxing stay in a more supervised setting and some Thorazine.

 

[Justinian]

Hmmm

Okaaaaaaaaaaay... Maybe a cruise wouldn't be quite enough. Maybe a nice relaxing stay in a more supervised setting and some Thorazine.

Yeah, and you're fool plain and simple. He IS a despicable man and an Evil one. Keep denying with your BS. Denial is one of the major things that cause problems. People will deny the true nature of the world yet they will try to change things to make it in their own view. Denial.

 

[Justinian]

HA

Yes, I have come on here to tell people my views because this isnt the real world, this is a place to tell people your views and beliefs.

If this place is pathetic to you, as you sarcastically call it a higher place of knowledge, why do you stay here? If you truely are a better man that I ever will meet, and you don't think anyone here is worthy of your time, leave. Leave this place to people who enjoy a debate rather than hate it.

What? What the hell are you talking about. What on God's green earth are you talking about? Must we pursue this inane conversation?