What is a liberal?

[ArmChair General]

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation.

 

[palerider]

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The nation wasn't founded as a theocracy. This doesn't exclude religion from the government. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

The phrase is meaningless if it isn't found in the constitution. The establishment clause clearly states that you may exercise your religion freely and if getting elected and working to see your moral principles enshrined into law is how you chose to excercise your religion, the constituion protects your right to do so. A separation of church and state can not exist at the same time as a constituional right to exercise your religion as you choose if elected office is how you choose to exercise your right. You are suggesting a paradox and no such paradox exists within the constitution. The paradox exists within your thinking.

 

[palerider]

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation.

America has never been a theocracy. There is a difference between a theocracy, and a nation that is operated by the principles (often religious) of the people who are elected. Since you can not force people to eliminate their religious or moral principles from how they vote, or how they govern once elected to office, you can do no more than mandate by law that the federal government may not set up a national religion. No wall ever has, or ever can exist between religion and government so long as religious people can be elected to office.

 

[ArmChair General]

The nation wasn't founded as a theocracy. This doesn't exclude religion from the government. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp.



The phrase is meaningless if it isn't found in the constitution. The establishment clause clearly states that you may exercise your religion freely and if getting elected and working to see your moral principles enshrined into law is how you chose to excercise your religion, the constituion protects your right to do so. A separation of church and state can not exist at the same time as a constituional right to exercise your religion as you choose if elected office is how you choose to exercise your right. You are suggesting a paradox and no such paradox exists within the constitution. The paradox exists within your thinking.

Yah thats sad isn't it. The moment a majority of Christian Revisionists come into power, they could literally turn the UNited States into Jesusland. IN fact its already happening.

 

[palerider]

Yah thats sad isn't it. The moment a majority of Christian Revisionists come into power, they could literally turn the UNited States into Jesusland. IN fact its already happening.

So you conceed that there can be no separation of church and state?

 

[ArmChair General]

So you conceed that there can be no separation of church and state?

No.

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle.

 

[top gun]

Dont you have anything to address his points? Or you having one of those pretend debates with yourself? MARK

It's not that at all.

It's just you can only cut and paste so much. The information is all out there. Everyone already knows my "personal" opinion. There was a definite and intentional separation of church and state and the founding fathers had good reason to want to set things up that way.

 

[Justinian]

Hey Folks

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle.

This is off topic but first of all, it's not a principle as much as it is a Judicial ruling. In fact, it's because of such monumental rulings that America is so void of principle today (Oh, you'll here about this from me later folks). Not only that but it's completely unconstitutional. In fact, it goes DIRECTLY against what the constitution says. DIRECTLY. I won't argue this with you because I have already on another forum and clearly won so there's the facts. Also, if you think the secularization of America and the American 'education' system was a good thing, you are one of those special few who are certified. That, or you bought into all that nonsense you were brainwashed, yes brainwashed, with since before you could read or write. Because of things like this, the average American today is either scum or a coward. And don't ever dare to convince me or any other members of this board that it had nothing to do with the decline of the church in America and the unfathomable increase in divorce rates. And I bet you don't even know how America was secularized, do you? Do you know the story? Cause I do. I'm actually all too familiar with it. You're an example of what people are today. 75% of people I meet either don't know what they're talking about or are dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest because that would make you despicable so I'll give you the halo benefit of a doubt and think you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ArmChair General]

This is off topic but first of all, it's not a principle as much as it is a Judicial ruling. In fact, it's because of such monumental rulings that America is so void of principle today (Oh, you'll here about this from me later folks). Not only that but it's completely unconstitutional. In fact, it goes DIRECTLY against what the constitution says. DIRECTLY. I won't argue this with you because I have already on another forum and clearly won so there's the facts. Also, if you think the secularization of America and the American 'education' system was a good thing, you are one of those special few who are certified. That, or you bought into all that nonsense you were brainwashed, yes brainwashed, with since before you could read or write. Because of things like this, the average American today is either scum or a coward. And don't ever dare to convince me or any other members of this board that it had nothing to do with the decline of the church in America and the unfathomable increase in divorce rates. And I bet you don't even know how America was secularized, do you? Do you know the story? Cause I do. I'm actually all too familiar with it. You're an example of what people are today. 75% of people I meet either don't know what they're talking about or are dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest because that would make you despicable so I'll give you the halo benefit of a doubt and think you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

You sound uneducated. Also, please try and use the enter button every now and then.

Thats like one long run-on sentence and its annoying.

 

[vyo476]

This is off topic but first of all, it's not a principle as much as it is a Judicial ruling.

Well, your history is mostly in order. However, what the Supreme Court says, for better or for worse, goes.

In fact, it's because of such monumental rulings that America is so void of principle today (Oh, you'll here about this from me later folks). Not only that but it's completely unconstitutional. In fact, it goes DIRECTLY against what the constitution says. DIRECTLY.

Care to back up your claims?

I won't argue this with you because I have already on another forum and clearly won so there's the facts.

Just so you know, that isn't how we do things here. You can make references to other threads on the board and link to other boards if necessary, but for the most part, if you make a claim like this, you may expect someone to ask you to back it up.

Also, if you think the secularization of America and the American 'education' system was a good thing, you are one of those special few who are certified. That, or you bought into all that nonsense you were brainwashed, yes brainwashed, with since before you could read or write.

So the idea is brainwashing because people like it?

Because of things like this, the average American today is either scum or a coward.

Or attempting to find a better driving force than testosterone or blind adherence to unlikely and often contradictory religious principles.

And don't ever dare to convince me or any other members of this board that it had nothing to do with the decline of the church in America and the unfathomable increase in divorce rates.

Yeah, because women trying to get out of abusive relationships...what a terrible thing. The essence of divorce is the admission that entering into the marriage contract was a mistake - which seems to me like a flouting of sinful pride. Why's that bad exactly?

And I bet you don't even know how America was secularized, do you? Do you know the story? Cause I do. I'm actually all too familiar with it.

Well good for you. Tell me, how many gold stars did these vague attacks earn you at "Militant Jesus" camp when you were little?

You're an example of what people are today. 75% of people I meet either don't know what they're talking about or are dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest because that would make you despicable so I'll give you the halo benefit of a doubt and think you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

Ladies and gentlemen, marvel at the superiority complex.

 

[vyo476]

You sound uneducated. Also, please try and use the enter button every now and then.

Thats like one long run-on sentence and its annoying.

And we thought Roker's drivel was tough to read.

 

[Justinian]

Ha

Contradictory? Have you ever read the Bible? You're a complete atheist that's for sure and I have little respect for atheists. They have always been a societal burden, it's just amazing how some people will actually take your narrow-minded opinion seriously. And speaking of superiority complex, if you mean my getting on my high horse, that's exactly what you did using your meaningless seniority as leverage when in truth you know nothing of whom your communicating with. Don't try and shove your lies and nonsense down my throat either; I'm not one of your other fool members you can manipulate and abuse. I've been at this game longer than you know and I've debated with people exactly like you more times that you know and in more different ways than you could realize.

 

[Justinian]

Hey folks

And we thought Roker's drivel was tough to read.

That's a nice try of deflection but discussing how my typing seems to run together to you is subjective, irrelevant not worth the waste of post. You must be certified or something to question my statement that the ohara vs the state trial ruling was unconstitutional. It was. It's a fact whether you want to realize that or spin it or not. You can't change the facts by typing, you can only manipulate which is what you're trying to do like any atheist tries to do. Ohara was an atheist just like you are. She was brutally murdered too. I like your name-calling though and condescending talk. It makes you look really intelligent and not a silly fool. If anything, people should talk that way to you because you're so self-righteously ignorant about Christianity and all it has done.

f you respond to this with stupid comments far and wide that have nothing to do with eachother, you're a brainless spectator.

 

[top gun]

No.

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle.

This is such a good post I can't even think of one thing to add to it... and I'm a talker...

 

[top gun]

Well, your history is mostly in order. However, what the Supreme Court says, for better or for worse, goes.


Care to back up your claims?


Just so you know, that isn't how we do things here. You can make references to other threads on the board and link to other boards if necessary, but for the most part, if you make a claim like this, you may expect someone to ask you to back it up.


So the idea is brainwashing because people like it?


Or attempting to find a better driving force than testosterone or blind adherence to unlikely and often contradictory religious principles.


Yeah, because women trying to get out of abusive relationships...what a terrible thing. The essence of divorce is the admission that entering into the marriage contract was a mistake - which seems to me like a flouting of sinful pride. Why's that bad exactly?


Well good for you. Tell me, how many gold stars did these vague attacks earn you at "Militant Jesus" camp when you were little?



Ladies and gentlemen, marvel at the superiority complex.

There is at least something superior here....... this reply. Good post my friend.