Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 94 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2018 2:18 PM
220 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,520 Year: 5,343/29,783 Month: 1,275/1,467 Week: 161/311 Day: 30/63 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 91 of 160 (237839)
08-27-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 4:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
OK please justify these statements. Washington? religious thinker?

If you don't know what happened between Washington and Paine, take some to educate yourself and then get back to us.

Also, Please answer my questions from earlier post. By allowing religion and governemnt to mix you mean christianity and religion correct?

What do you mean by religion and government "mixing"? I have never argued for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 4:32 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 8:32 PM randman has responded
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 8:37 PM randman has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 160 (237841)
08-27-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
08-27-2005 8:28 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Neither American history nor church-state issues are on-topic in this thread.

Your constant attempt to send us off the rails begins to look a little suspicious, Rand. Having trouble with the topic at hand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:28 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:33 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 93 of 160 (237842)
08-27-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 5:30 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
You're being silly. Quit dodging the issue. What you seem to be saying is that religioys values are not an acceptable basis for laws, and that's where you are wrong. The Constitution does not ban religious values or religion from influencing secular laws.

What the Constitution bans is for the government to pass ecclesiastical laws pertaining to religious doctrine or church affairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 5:30 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 9:04 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 160 (237843)
08-27-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 8:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Crash, you are the one that brought up separation of Church and State, not me. I suggest you take your own advice, but if you are going to make wild, unfounded accusations based on ignorance, then you should expect some folks to correct you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 8:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 9:27 PM randman has responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 95 of 160 (237845)
08-27-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
08-27-2005 8:28 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
We have been asked to keep this thread on topic.

I was looking for you to show proof for your comments. BUt if have none fine. And there is no need to be condescending, but then again you tend to do that when asked to provide proof for your comments.

If church and state are not seperate then they are one (thus mixed). It is an either or.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:28 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by CK, posted 08-27-2005 8:43 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 1872 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 96 of 160 (237846)
08-27-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theodoric
08-27-2005 8:37 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
It appears that you are engaged in debate with randman - his only aim will be to draw you off the topic. Under those circumstances it is best not even to point out to him that is what he is doing - just reply to those questions/points that actually have to do with Crash's OP.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2005 8:37 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 160 (237847)
08-27-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
08-27-2005 7:01 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Um, crash, you do realize that is a factual statement. The term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution.

The right of free expression of religion is granted to the people, not to the government. There's no violation of the First Amendment because that amendment grants rights to the people, not to the government.

Are people not within the government? Basically, you are ignoring the fact that the prohibition is not towards government participation, but government legislation.

If what you are saying is true, then Congressional chaplains should be unConstitutional, right? And you agree with that, right?

But here's your problem. The people that ratified the Constitution are the same ones that instituted Congressional chaplains. Evidently, they didn't think it was unConstitutional.

Maybe what's occuring is that you have a false idea on what the 1st amendment says? I respectfully submit this is the case, and moreover, that we should interpret the establishment and free exercise clause with it's original intention, not some concept borne out of claims of the Constitution being a living document.

his religion would necessitate religious laws, and he would excize persons who were not either Christians or Jews from office:

No, he just thinks in an ideal situation we should only vote for Christians and Jews for elected office. That's not the same as passing laws to create a theocracy. You and libs in typical fashion overstate the case. He has some views to one side, but he's not advocating a theocracy as you claim.

What you fail to realize is the 1st amendment guarantees the rights of someone like PR to hold contrary views. He thinks religious people are the only ones to be trusted with power.

Well, guess what, I've heard others say the opposite, that no seriously devoted religious person should be trusted with power.

In America, you get to have the opinions you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 7:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 9:25 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 98 of 160 (237848)
08-27-2005 8:47 PM


hmmm...
I guess if you are thoroughly beaten, you start resorting to claiming others repudiating your claims are off-topic.

Gotta go.

Faith, I was glad to help out. Have a good evening.


Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2005 9:30 PM randman has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 99 of 160 (237851)
08-27-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by randman
08-27-2005 8:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
What the Constitution bans is for the government to pass ecclesiastical laws pertaining to religious doctrine or church affairs.

Wow!

Yes, I know I am off topic. But that's such a gross misreading of the constitution, it deserves to be highlighted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:32 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 9:06 PM nwr has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 100 of 160 (237853)
08-27-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by nwr
08-27-2005 9:04 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
"Congress shall pass no law...."

I suggest you read the Constitution first before making yourself look foolish here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 9:04 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 08-27-2005 9:13 PM randman has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5579
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 101 of 160 (237855)
08-27-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by randman
08-27-2005 9:06 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
"Congress shall pass no law...."

Right. But by logic that completely escapes me, you reach the strange conclusion that it is talking about ecclesiastic law.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 9:06 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:53 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 102 of 160 (237856)
08-27-2005 9:14 PM


Spawning a new thread
I'll go start a new thread about foundations of our legal system, let's get back on topic here.
    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 160 (237862)
08-27-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by randman
08-27-2005 8:45 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Um, crash, you do realize that is a factual statement. The term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution.

I didn't contest it's factuality. I'm merely defending the assertion that this is Robertson's view, which you challenged but appear now to accept. As I said, the legitimacy of Robertson's views is not the topic of this thread.

If what you are saying is true, then Congressional chaplains should be unConstitutional, right?

I believe I've already asserted that I believe that they are unconstitutional. Regardless, that is not the topic of this thread.

No, he just thinks in an ideal situation we should only vote for Christians and Jews for elected office

That would be an inaccurate characterization of his views, which he goes on to clarify:

quote:
When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

I don't see anything there about voting, do you?

In America, you get to have the opinions you want.

I've never said that he doesn't. This sub-topic is about the defense of an accurate characterization of his views, which you challenged and then accepted, not defending or attacking their legitimacy.

Nonetheless, speech has consequences. Robertson is entitled to his views but I'm entitled to call for cable companies to stop using my money to fund speech I don't support.

And, again, constitutional issues are not the topic of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:45 PM randman has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 160 (237863)
08-27-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
08-27-2005 8:33 PM


Crash, you are the one that brought up separation of Church and State, not me.

That would be incorrect. Church-state issues were introduced into the thread by you, when you challenged the assertion that Robertson doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, a claim which you later appeared to abandon.

I remind you again that church-state issues are not the topic of this thread; the topic of the thread is Pat Robertson and his credentials as a humanitarian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:33 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 08-28-2005 2:55 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 160 (237864)
08-27-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
08-27-2005 8:47 PM


Re: hmmm...
I guess if you are thoroughly beaten, you start resorting to claiming others repudiating your claims are off-topic.

Your claims have been consistently off-topic, except for a half-hearted attempt to contest minor issues of the OP. To date not a single post of yours has successfully contended with my argument; hence your repeated attempts to hijack the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 8:47 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018