|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Separation of church and state | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: There doesn't seem to be much information on the net about many court cases. Are you serious!?! I can name at least five different places off the top of my head to find..... YES, I'M SERIOUS! IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, IN MESSGAE 191;
subbie writes: I couldn't find an actual opinion for Gierke v. Blotzer, I love this place!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The US foundings represent a fear of "domestic faction and insurrection". Right. By people like you. Did you not get that when you read the Federalist Papers? That you are who the founders were most afraid of: ignorant, religious demagogues, clamoring for religious authoritarian rule?
So you think these forums represent the population at large? No, I think they represent objective, verifiable fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Global warming is an example, it’s obviously more than a disinterested search for truth when we see destruction of data and attempts to prevent facts (and the facts of the coverup) from being published in leading journals.
You are great with assertions, but absolutely terrible on evidence. How about trying to supply some evidence for these wild ass assertions. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
That I couldn't find one opinion hardly means that I can't find many. Instead, my suspicion is that the opinion doesn't even exist. In any event, if the opinion doesn't appear any place other than in some rabblerousing book, it certainly can't be very important or influential, can it?
I love this place! Glad you've found a home. Here's hoping you stick around long enough to learn something, although I won't hold my breath. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It 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 ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Instead, my suspicion is that the opinion doesn't even exist. I agree. The only place this "case" is mentioned is on fundy sites. I did find this
quote: Does that look a real case number? Anyone have access to PACER? From what I understand all court cases are in PACER. Heck with it I will just register and search for the case. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nebraska only has the cases going back to 1991 in Pacer.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Since this case does not seem to exist, I think we need to assume it does not until marc can provide actual evidence for it. It sure looks to be a fundie urban myth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
That citation is from US District Court. It's not a Nebraska state case.
I don't know whether PACER gives access to opinions from 20 years ago, but a trip to just about any county law library would get you to the opinion in about 5 minutes, with a bit of help from the librarian. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It 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 ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I imagine that it exists. The question is whether it actually says what they claim it says.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It existed, it was probably debated amongst the founders. It existed in the thoughts of Jefferson and 1 or 2 other founders. It didn’t exist in an important sense to most of the founders, or it would be in the Constitution. It is. It's called the First Amendment. You know, the one that, amongst other things, separates Church and State? If you merely wish to quibble that that phrase is not in the Constitution, then I would point out that neither is the phrase "separation of powers". But the principle is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
When objective evidence of human behavior shows that special rights for homosexuals could very well be a burden on a society that is already trillions of dollars in debt, the core of the problem could very well be the religion of humanism, and those who choose it. May I take it that, as you are a religious conservative, you are using the term "special rights" to mean "exactly the same rights as heterosexuals already have"? If it costs money to grant people these rights (and you have neither provided evidence for this nor given the faintest hint as to why you think it might be true) then I would point out that homosexuals are a fairly small minority, and that you could save even more money by depriving heterosexuals of their rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Believe it or not there are places in the world where that IS the usual meaning of "states". And since as we have established all the states of the U.S. are secular by law (1st plus 14th Amendments) your reading doesn't make much sense. I realise that "Christians" like you don't like to own up to your mistakes - we've got plenty of examples in this thread. But if it really upsets you to be wrong perhaps you should make more of an effort to get it right in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Translation: "Science has disproved the beliefs of my sect. Therefore we must be given special privileges."
quote: Translation: "If people are allowed to disagree with me, we'll end up with a tyranny ! SO obviously you must appoint me as tyrant !"
quote: In fact science has not yet established how life first arose (although the smart money is on a natural origin on this planet). And it is certain that humans have contributed to global warming and can take steps to at least reduce their contribution. You're simply on the side of those who love money more than human life (what does the Bible say about the love of money ?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It’s not that simple. All too often today, it means that any traditional, moral consideration of the Christian religion in general, held by almost all of the population at the time the US was founded, will be blocked by the courts so that only science/naturalism is the lone consultant for morally troublesome decisions. Courts ARE a part of secular society, so in a sense that should be the only arbiter. People's religious views do play a part in how one views morality, but we shouldn't be using the bible as a template. I trust that you wouldn't appreciate living under Shari'a law, and I assume you wouldn't like living under the Halacha either. All you seem to care about is your own views on morality as being the absolute standard. What if the shoe was on the other foot, Marc? I don't think you would like it.
I have no beef with the first amendment, I have a beef with separation of church and state. But it is a part of the 1st Amendment. You seem hung up on one word, but the concept is incontrovertibly clear, especially when viewing other documents written by the Framers.
Re-read my opening post. My beef is with history revisionists who claim that separation of church and state has always been part of US foundings. It has not been, it has evolved. I have posted the evidence as clear as day that refutes everything you've said. Curiously though, you've neglected to respond. You want to talk about revisionism, but how about the fact that the phrase "In God We Trust" on our coinage and c-notes was implemented in the 1950's, but the 1st Amendment, along with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, along with Thomas Paine's book Common Sense, and a myriad of other personal memoirs make it painfully clear that the 1st Amendment was intended to be there from the beginning. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
double post
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024