Is the separation of church and state a lie?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying that any organization does promote that. I'm just trying to give a different perspective that might explain why Christians react the way they do. The point of my last statement was that we believe abstinance is the best way because abstinance prevents so much pain, like unwanted pregnancies, broken relationships, and STD's. I know in the high school I went to, abstinance was barely mentioned, it was pretty much assumed that the kids were going to have sex. And when the students recognize that those in authority already expect them to do so, it just encourages the whole matter. And the promotion of a sexualized culture tends to desensitive people, so that they can't appreciate the other sex, i.e., men treat women as sexual objects instead of people who need love and attention. I know this from experience, having had a 12-year addiction to pornography which ruined relationships.
 
uh also from the rules link....durrrrr...

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

close this thread!!!! hollyrolling belongs elsewhere, my friend...
 
Umm....I don't think I've seen anyone here say, "My god is better than your god." And so far, this has been a pretty civil thread, and holyrolling? Thanks for the insult, we've been pretty civil, until you're comment.

This thread has been about a very important civil rights issue, and if you don't like, no one's forcing you to read it. And obviously you care enough about the thread to rant about it to us.
 
There's a "report this post to a moderator button" if you're so inclined, but this thread, goning on its 9th page in dealing with an important an often heated issue, has been more civil than 80% of the drivel posted in L&P. Both sides of the argument here will likely agree.

This thread is about the separation of church and state, which is not the same as bickering with "my god is better than your god" type crap.
 
K Harris:
She has been a slow-motion train wreck for months. Some of her own making & some of Jeb Bush & the Republiweenies' making. The only reason I would support her in any way would be to stick a finger in the eyes of the naysayers that have hounded her from the beginning.

I consider her quoted statement in the first post roughly equivalent to a black politician in a majority black district making the case for electing a black man. Not my style or preferred means.

Oh, I would get some satisfaction seeing her win because of the ulcers it would give hte moonbats & Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers.

Separation of Church & State:
Bupkis. A fiction foisted on us by black robed tyrants and their slime-trail-leaving lackies.

I can read and I do not find the words or the principle in the COTUS. Pointing to one letter by TJ when years of his practice demnstrated otherwise is weak. Kind of like finding a letter extolling the virtues of pork by an orthodox rabbi, his entire life being testimony to a rather different point of view.

There are things in the COTUS that I object to, but I can not in honesty and good conscience say that some parchment written by one of the founders overrides its rather plain meanings.

Last, what is all this reverence for a scrap of paper written by TJ over the text of the COTUS? He had no hand in writing the COTUS. It is not as if the SoCaS letter would be included in "COTUS: The Director's Cut." We would be better served revering some letter written by Geuvenor Morris after a long night of drinking & tail chasing.

In the end, I think the SoCaS boosters want their way without having to make the hard argument in the realm of politics. Invoking SoCaS is a talisman used to ward off the fundie vampire and shut down debate.
 
Origin of Katherine Harris's comment

Katherine Harris said that God put polititians in power. She is basing this idea on the Bible. Romans 13:1 "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.

Interesting read. Might enlighten a few people.
 
Katherine Harris said that God put polititians in power. She is basing this idea on the Bible. Romans 13:1 "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside some strong evidence that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation, wouldn't this verse mean that rebellion, even against tyrannical .govs would be a sin as far as Christians should be concerned?
 
Romans 13, if read completely and in context tells how and why Christians must respect the governments and leaders that are in power at the time.

Yes, that does mean it would be a sin to rebel against the current form of government.

Opens up a whole new set of cans of worms doesn't it.
 
Certainly, the early Christians suffered far worse governments than we do today. Or for that matter, than the founders did in the 1770's. For all their faults, our British cousins weren't exactly publicly murdering colonists for entertainment.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that that particular directive was one of self preservation at that place and time. (I'm not certain I buy it, but it seems a valid argument to me).

ANYHOW.. I think one does need to make the distinction between those who wish to see Christianity - or at least its ethical heritage - to continue to inform governance, and those few who would actually seek to impose it.

-K

(Regardless, I'd like to say I'm particularly impressed with the membership here at THR. With very few exceptions, this debate has been civil, well-mannered, and well-reasoned beyond all expectations.. and experience, for that matter. Well done. :) )
 
"For all their faults, our British cousins weren't exactly publicly murdering colonists for entertainment."

We didn't need the British to murder colonists for entertainment, we were doing it ourselves. I'm not picking on Massachusetts, it just came up first on a Google search.

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/those_persistent_quakers

"Quaker Beatings, Whippings, and Hanging

To halt this flood of Quakers flowing over their land, the Massachusetts authorities, in 1656, passed a law imposing a hundred-pound fine on any sea captain who transported a Quaker into the colony. If this failed to stop the flood, whippings were administered to any Quakers found on land. But whippings were not the only form of punishment for non-Puritan religious convictions handed out in Massachusetts. Such as the case as Quaker Mary Dryer and two other Quakers who were hanged.

Punishment for Harboring a Quaker

Punishments were also administered to any one that was found to be harboring a Quaker. And still the Quakers came to America and Massachusetts."
 
Punishments were also administered to any one that was found to be harboring a Quaker. And still the Quakers came to America and Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Just as I posted earlier: There are plenty of ways to teach about morals, without saying that any one religion is "more equal" than any other.
 
Actually, genetic mutation and natural selection are the driving force behind the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

Um sorry, No. Sexual reproduction. It's what allows lifeforms to have differing characteristics from their parents. "natural selection" you mean the antiquated "survival of the fittest" concept? Sounds like you need a refresher on modern evolutionary theory, and I'm not talking about internet "research".
 
Um sorry, No. Sexual reproduction. It's what allows lifeforms to have differing characteristics from their parents. "natural selection" you mean the antiquated "survival of the fittest" concept? Sounds like you need a refresher on modern evolutionary theory, and I'm not talking about internet "research".
Click to expand...

Keith, with regards to human beings, you are mostly correct, "natural selection" does not play as important of a role based on our societal and environmental factors as well as the quality of facilitated medical care. However, in terms of general evolutionary science, since we are only a small minute fraction as compared to the vast species on this planet, if we generalize about evolution as a whole, we do have to allow how it works in circles outside of industrialized humanity to weigh heavily in our understanding. Natural selection is very alive and well in the animal kingdom, and natural selection (which sexual reproduction is a facet of) is indeed the driving force behind evolution.

It's a minor point within the scope of this discussion, I know, but I had to correct it. If you care to share with me some source for a contending look on evolutionary science as a whole, let's do it via PM so we don't spoil the Petri dish here in this thread.


Kaylee said:
Regardless, I'd like to say I'm particularly impressed with the membership here at THR. With very few exceptions, this debate has been civil, well-mannered, and well-reasoned beyond all expectations.. and experience, for that matter. Well done.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I keep hoping I don't make my way back to this thread only to see a reply that is of the same cloth as what most of us expected when this thread started. I'm very impressed with all of the participants thus far. :)
 
jfruser,

well said. If I read the post rightly, Harris was addressing a religious group, and telling them what voting choices she thinks, from a religious standpoint, are best for their faith. No different than 'red meat' dished out by all Pols when addressing special interest groups.

For those who think we Christians are imagining things, I suggest you google (or Ask.com, even better) "American Humanist Association" and "The Humanist ManifestoI, II, and III."

For the average citizen today, especially if he's public-school educated, to notice the influence of Humanism would be like a fish feeling wet.

You can disagree about whether Humanism's influence is good or bad, but there's no denying it's there.
 
I guess if you define the failure to adopt or endorse a particular religion as "humanism", sure.

What exactly do you mean by humanism?
 
To say that religious thought and practice didn't influence our founders view of the world, government and its relationship to the citizenry is revisionist history at its worst.

The protection is to keep government out of religion not to keep religious people and their ideas out of govrnment.
Click to expand...

I was about to post here, but I see the entire issue has already been well summarized. Bravo!
 
I guess if you define the failure to adopt or endorse a particular religion as "humanism", sure.

What exactly do you mean by humanism?
Click to expand...

Humanism is the denial of the Creator, and of any Power greater than mankind. In my opinion, it is the absolute pinnacle of human arrogance.
 
Humanism is the denial of the Creator, and of any Power greater than mankind. In my opinion, it is the absolute pinnacle of human arrogance.
Click to expand...

What about the many agnostics? Those who don't deny the concept of a creator nor powers greater than humanity (gravity perhaps?) but deny that the creator is 1) human-like and 2) has any influence on day to day activities?

By your definition (and by mine) I would postulate that there are very few humanists and many agnostics.
 
Humanism is the denial of the Creator, and of any Power greater than mankind. In my opinion, it is the absolute pinnacle of human arrogance.
Click to expand...

There are distinct differences between "denial", "failing to acknowledge" and realizing that everything has its place. As the number or percentage/ratio of non-adherents increases or the number/percentage/ratio of adherents decreases, the relevance of a given religion within the public scope is naturally reduced. This is not denial, this is not indicative of a grand conspiracy plot to abort said religion, it's simple social and human dynamics.

I don't see many public schools with curriculum stating that "God does not exists", I do see them failing to approach the subject and leaving religions as a topic to be discussed at home with the family or at church with the congregations...right where it all belongs.

I just don't see the justification for the muffled cries of persecution coming from the most powerful mainstream and best represented religion in this country. Now, things may be changing, in fact, things are changing, it's time to evolve and realize that as people change, so will your place at the table.
 
Wow!

Nothing like 8 pages of clearly gun related debate to get the old heart a pumpin!

:scrutiny:




(EDIT: Correction, 9 PAGES)
 
Is the separation of church and state a lie?
Click to expand...

The "My God's better than your God" theocrats would have you believe so.

Me, I say the people on both sides of the issue should sit down to a nice 9mm vs .45 debate. It would be almost as productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Katherine Harris announces run for U.S. Senate in 2006
Replies
8
Views
622
TarpleyG
T
D
  • Locked
Harris: Lack of support because I can't be controlled
Replies
0
Views
285
Desertdog
D
D
  • Locked
Republican Buchanan Declared Fla. Winner
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Jim March
J
T
  • Locked
Separation of Church and State
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
TheBluesMan
T
P
  • Locked
E-voting: Diebold hacker investigation takes a new turn...
Replies
4
Views
543
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top