Separation of church and state

So you propose science as a religion, and you do so to knock science down a notch. Does that not seem hypocritical to you? You revere your religion of jeebus so much, why is it a negative implication to you if science were a religion?The creationist mindset is one that baffles me..... Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

why is this relevant? Ideas cannot be shared without them being exactly the same?Please explain how treating a Christian the same as a muslim or Hindu is a bad thing for a society.Please explain how the government taking a neutral stance as far as religion is concerned is a bad thing. Why does it matter where and when you heard of it? Isn't the content and context the important part?I'd like to point out that I knew of Treaty of Tripoli before I was an atheist. I was a Historymajor so that may make the difference. Please point them out

(Sorry for the title but it's what it called.) Let me just make a quick aside - I can appreciate that it is aggravating to field posts from so many participants at once. My hope is that you can consider it somewhat of a compliment - it means your posts are clear, understandable, well-formatted, and interesting, and you're at least willing to grapple with replies. Frequently creationists lack some number of these qualities and the result is that few if any of us will talk to them simply because it's too laborious just to puzzle out what they're saying, or because there's no point - they're on a script and simply won't respond meaningfully to anything you have to say.You've gotten some attention for indicating that you're an intelligent, responsive, clear communicator. I know it suddenly feels like you're one against the hordes. If it would help you, I think it's fair for you to ask some participants to bow out (or some to bow in.) If you like we have a "Great Debate" format, where you can select one or more individuals as your sole opponents. (Further rules for debate are up for negotiation.)I'd invite you to do that - pick the individual or individuals you feel are making the most representative case for the opposition and challenge them to a "Great Debate" on the topics you'd like to discuss. I think you'd find that anybody you picked would be willing to take up the challenge, simply because you've proven yourself interesting, polite, and capable.

Perhaps you'd have fewer people arguing with you if you stopped saying so many wrong things. Or, as crash suggests, go to a Great Debate Format Another noecon lie. Voluntary religious activities aren't unconstitutionalI will grant you that occasionally local official might err and interfere with individual exercises of religious expression. If that happens and it's challenged, it's declared unconstitutional.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Depends on what you mean by subtle. President Bush, god bless his soul, and his ilk kept saying they wanted equal rights for gay people yet kept trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and any form of civil union for gay people that resembled marriage. They keep telling everyone they believe in equal rights for all, yet their actions tell us a completely different story.I'm more than sure that in Bush's biography he will stamp the phrase "I believe equal rights for all" at the beginning of each chapter. But frankly, his actions told us a completely different belief system.Again, I am not naive enough to believe the framers actually believed in equal rights for all. Hell, even the KKK from time to time have said they believed in equal rights for all. It's a fashionable thing to say, but few people actually believe in it. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

But Bush was never very subtle and the blame for him lies squarely with the American electorate, just as the blame for Tony Bliar lies squarely with people like me who compromised our principles to get the Tories out, knowing full well that Blair wasn't really 'Labour', but thinking once he was in that he could be controlled by the party. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

You're aware that the American electorate voted for Gore, right? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Quite, 'twas the system that made him president then. There is however the slight matter of his re-election thoug, which perhaps is even more remarkable, seeing as you had already experienced the guy for four years at that time. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Indeed, but I saw very little readiness amongst the population, in the news we got, to go to the barricades in support of their democratic choice, and within a few years they voted the blighter back in. Edited by AdminPD, : Warring

Participants please stick to the topic of "Separation of Church and State". Refrain from jumping on an incorrect statement if it doesn't move the discussion forward.Marc9000,
There are no time restraints on responding to a post. Answer at your leisure when you have the time. You don't have to respond to everybody every day. Pick the ones that move the discussion forward and catch the others when you have time.There is no pressure to respond quickly. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

It seemed more in the nature of a snide remark than an argument of substance. However, if you think it should be addressed, let me direct your attention to a few more facts about the same document.The same article of the constitution also grants them "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess [...] any religion, and to conduct religious worship".Should we abolish freedom of conscience and the right to worship because that's in the USSR's constitution?Article 50 guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations".I guess we should get rid of freedom of speech too, that's sooo communist.How about the right to privacy? That's article 56.Freedom of association? Article 51.The right to vote is article 96, the secrecy of the ballot being guaranteed by article 99.The problem with the USSR (apart from the whole communism thing) was not that their constitution guaranteed to Soviet citizens the same important rights and liberties that Americans enjoy, but that their government did not in fact live up to this constitution.Just because they paid empty lip-service to the ideals of Madison and Jefferson does not mean that those ideals were wrong. It means they were hypocrites who didn't live up to those ideals.And if we were to make the Establishment Clause no more than words on a bit of paper, we'd be guilty of the same thing.

And the United State's implementation started long before any Soviet version of separation of church and state. So what does that tell you? What relevance does it have to America's separation of church and state, which was implemented long before there ever was a Soviet empire? You are using a non-sequitur to make an invalid point. And that's all it means! That is a complete fabrication. Since 1947 the separation of church and state had lessened considerably, so that even on our forms of currency it reads "In God We Trust." Slowly it has been shifting back to where it needs to be, per the Constitution of the United States. Who says we know more than the Founders did?

quote:

---

Would you like to repeal the Separation of Church and State, and if so, on what grounds?

---

Then you have quite a bit of reading. There is no, nor should there be, any cooperative relationship between church and state. Should there be any cooperative relationship between mosques and the state? No? Then what basis do you have and why do you hate the Constitution?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Then my question would be, since the first treaty of Tripoli states that As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion., the two words ANY SENSE is a profound part of it. Unless we bend and shape the word any, it means absolutely none - not a single one. Yet Sundays excepted is one, isn’t it? I’ve been shown here in Message 46 (correctly) that treaties are established law in the US. Suppose that phrase of the Treaty of Tripoli was closely examined — taken to court, with the only intent to find out if it’s true. If you were the judge, would it be? If I were the judge, it wouldn’t be, because I wouldn’t be willing to play games with the word any. I’m not claiming it’s a Christian document. But it has to be based on something, however indirect or vague some people may find that base to be. No, indirect as I’m using it means a consideration of Biblical guidelines for living. As I showed in my Message 56, the settling of new land, observing decrees and laws, the cooperation of people within an organized society. Neither will the US, if it continues to change, to continue to make separation of church and state such an important part of it’s education/law. Going back to a quote that I referred to in my opening post; Half of a constitutional law class? Could it have been half of a constitutional law class 200 years ago?

quote:

---

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

---

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford—Once Christian? | Answers in Genesis Why has separation of church and state evolved so much?

It’s a bad thing for a society that was originally populated by Christians. A society can be diverse — it can welcome members of other societies, but when those new members want to impose beliefs/lifestyles/rules from their homeland that clash with existing beliefs/lifestyles/rules, it’s not going to work. Diversity has to have limits, when it comes to maintaining rules on how a society operates. It allows the religion of humanism to be established. The religion of humanism is closely related with scientism. The basic philosophy of humans evolving from lower forms of animals is that society continues to evolve and so must our ethics and system of morality. The tenets of the Humanist Manifestos are based on the worldview of evolution. If enough people in a society believe that morals shouldn’t change, it shouldn’t be a decision of a publically established scientific community to tell them they’re wrong.

I appreciate that very much. When this ones over, and in a less busy time of the year for me, I may propose a one on one with someone.