Separation of church and state

Is your evidence that they pushed back that the word separation is not in the Constitution? That's it? Because that word doesn't exist some of them pushed back on the idea?All well and good on Joseph Story but you obviously had and probably have no clue about him until I mentioned he was born in 1779. Because you claimed that he would have pushed back on separation at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution.Lets see what you wrote. my bold
Message 182So my comment to that was It doesn't make a rats ass that some website lists him as a founder. He wasn't even 10 at the time you claim he would have been pushing back on separation of church and state. I don't think he had a vote. I don't think he was there. Know your subject, know your sources and confirm your information before you make such over reaching claims. It will keep you from looking a bit silly. But if you want to continue this line of argument go for it.I see you had nothing to say about the other founders I questioned. Ok show us the cryptic way religion and the christian god are entwined in the Constitution. Look at Message 121 The source is the same as you used for Joseph Story. You want to take that source as a valid source for Joseph Story, so it should be a valid source on the "Sundays" issue. You see they actually have done research. You never did reply to that message to provide any argument or evidence. Seems to be your typical MO.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Is it is. Tyranny of the majority is not allowed in this country. If a majority of voters decided that catholics could not run for office do you think it would be allowed. You have a very poor understanding of the constitution and how things work. The courts would find the law unconsitutional and over turn it. No matter what the voters decided.We are seeing this play out in California right now.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Misinterpreted what he said. His arguments have been so beyond the pale that I guess I assume the most ridiculous argument. You hit it on the head. Always his arguments are based upon some warped attempt at revisionist history, but he doesn't even seem to know history. Just knows how to parrot fundie talking points.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Evidence please? Bullshit. You attempt to make an argument and were shown that almost allow your examples were wrong and you tried to sneak in someone that was 7 at the time. OK, I admit you didn't try to sneak it in, you just didn't know. Confirm your fundie sources before you post their crap. The first part is what Jar calls word salad. You say nothing and provide no evidence for your argument. You make assertions with no evidence and still have not shown the christian parts of the bible. You think the founders wanted non-human governance? The things you claim could be better ascribed to the classical greeks.
The second part is a bald assertion. Any chance you can back that with any evidence? Wow take a quote out of context much. This is the full quote.

quote:

---

In summary, Madison's education at Princeton furnished him, from the wisdom of Greece and Rome, a lifelong realism about human nature, a comprehensive concept of political obligation, and an instinctive admiration of patience, prudence, and moderation. From the Christian tradition, he inherited a sense of the prime importance of conscience, a strict personal morality, an understanding of human dignity as well as depravity, and a conviction that vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare. From Locke, he learned that to be fully human, men had to be free, and that to be free, they had in some way to take part in their government' (Ketcham 1994, 50).

---

This is not about "the founders". It is an observation made in a biography of James Madison. This is the opinions of a biographer writing in 1990 about JAMES MADISON. More importantly, it says nothing about how he felt about the separation of church and state. I notice that you have no argument against what the source stated. You just ignored it. Show why the part you used is valid but the part I used was not. Make it convincing that it's important to the topic, use as many words as you need. In other words you will ignore all evidence and not present any. When the world is against you it usually means you are the one that is wrong. We have plenty of fundies on this board. Their silence in supporting you should speak volumes.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

My original comment was not about the complexity or simplicity of religion. I suggest you reread my post.Hyro was responding to this line from you. You are the one making the comment about the simplicity of a religion.I took note of what Hyro said. I noticed it had nothing to do what I originally posted. Maybe if you reread the whole conversation you might start to understand what was actually stated by myself and Hyro. Then again maybe not.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

I agree. The only place this "case" is mentioned is on fundy sites.I did find this

quote:

---

(Gierke v. Blotzer, CV-88-0-883 (U.S.D.C. Neb. 1989).

---

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

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.

You misrepresented the evidence. In other words you lied. Then post something from Madison showing this is how he felt. And I repeat, this says nothing about how he felt about the separation of church and state. If you feel it does then make a valid argument. Repeat after me. Evolution does not have to do with origins. When science books mention Newton, should they also mention that he was a firm believer in alchemy? You point is ridiculous to the extreme. Not at all, but it sure does sound like the teabaggers. Evidence please.Not Found
I followed the link and read the article. It said this.

quote:

---

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[8][9]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12]

---

And you know what. It had references to sources that show that the film is a bunch of crap. Read the references.
Oh from the same wiki page

quote:

---

In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.

---

Marriage would be a "special right"?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You are now the arbiter of who is a chistian? Tell us why he is not a christian.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What is the point you are attempting to make here?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I am not calling you a liar but I question the truthfulness of this statement. If you actually had the book you would have called it by its title not its subtitle.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So, because you say so. This is a glaring fallacy. Like all your other assertions, no evidence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So the only private schools are the ones that take NO federal or state funding?The only true independent research is that done with NO government funding?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

When most people think Lutheran they think of the ELCA. This is the classic mainstream Lutheran church.There are some extreme fundie Lutheran churches which would not be considered "mainstream". Basically, a Lutheran is not a Lutheran is not a Lutheran.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod are infallible, inerrant churches.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts