Separation of Church and State

[midnight Target]

Churches have every right to be as stupid and bigoted as they please.

[Toad]

Nash, you got pinned. No matter how you spin it.

You called SEAGOON on what he said, claimed nobody could show it's on both sides.

Seagoon proved your claim totall wrong.

Funked ain't in this one. Try to put him in. Start a fire, burn a tire, smoke it up.

It's there. It's obvious.

Deny, if you like. Feels good, do it.

Whatever.




Now, you want me to tell you what Funked was thinking or what?

I suggest you ask Funked what he was thinking.

If you have a direct question for me and can frame it understandably, I'll answer you. You know I will. Without dodges, straight up.

[Nash]

Lol Toad, sometimes you are so full of chit.

When you get off your ridiculous obsession with "getting pinned", scoring points, and winning, and all the other BS, lemme know. Nuke used to say stuff like that all the time, for what it's worth.

I'm not in a contest here. Feel free to pretend you are all you want if it makes ya feel good.

At work now anyways.... so mebbe we'll chat later and I can come back from the big deficit I've apparently left myself in, and pull out a squeaker in overtime. Ciao.

[Seagoon]

Look guys, I'm not trying to pin, zing, whap, or kapow anyone. I was commenting on what I thought about the original situation.

What am I against? The church, which is supposed to be the body of Christ, and which he has commissioned to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" being used as a tool to achieve political ends. I've quoted this before, I'll quote it again:

"Just because the preaching of the Word is so great a task the church must devote itself to it alone. For the church to undertake other activities, not indissolubly bound up with this one, is a colossal blunder, because it inevitably results in neglect of its proper task. Let not the church degenerate into a social club. Let not the church go into the entertainment business. Let not the church take sides on such aspects of economics, politics, or natural science as are not dealt with in the Word of God. And let the church be content to teach special, not general revelation. Let the church be the church." - R.B. Kuiper

For an even better explanation of the importance of not politicizing the church, take a look here: Great Commission or Great Society

Nash, I know in one sense you are eager to keep "religion out of politics," while I am even more eager to keep politics out of the church.

But you seem to be getting dangerously close to wanting to keep Christian ethics out of politics or people who happen to be evangelical Christians out as well - or am I misreading you? Should a belief in absolute truth and faith in Jesus Christ automatically disqualify someone from serving in public office or being involved in politics, in a way for instance that believing in situational ethics, and the teachings of Darwin, Hume, Locke, Malcolm X, Rousseau, Marx, and Engels doesn't?

Now I wouldn't be all that bothered if you said "yes", because at heart, modern politics comes down to "I want people who hold to my beliefs in power, and I want people who oppose them, out" - and I am not demanding or expecting to be "tolerated." If a position is false, it shouldn't be tolerated, if on the other hand it is true,   it deserves to be accepted not tolerated.  "Tolerance" generally only flows one way, in any event.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Toad
BTW, Sea... could you post that link to your site again.

You've impressed me Preacher. I want to read some more in a more formal setting where you don't have to swat so many flies.

I realized today that I may a rare conservative Universalist. I've got to do some more study to see just how deep in the doo that puts me.

Hi Toad,

Here is the link to my site

I hope that some of the links and info will be helpful to you in getting out of the doo. If you have anything you want to talk to me directly about, or if you want a few recommendations, please feel free to send me an email

I can also hook you up with a few other crazies like me if you would like a more formal discussion of this Christianity stuff.

- SEAGOON

PS: Forgot to mention, this might be a good basic link to consider starting with:Ulitmate Questions It will at the very least provide fodder for discussion.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Nash
Now I would like to hear substantiation of Funked's claim,

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050427/D89O05980.html

I'll see if I can find the text of the speech.  Every other word out of his mouth was "zealot", "fanatic", "fundamentalist", or "extremist".  There must have been a memo from DNC HQ with these words in it.  Pelosi and a few others are doing it too.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Lol Toad, sometimes you are so full of chit.

 

What can I say? I learned from the Master... you.

Originally posted by Nash
When you get off your ridiculous obsession with "getting pinned",  

It's not score keeping, it's keeping the debate honest.

You posted a pure line of crap there; horse doobers, bull exhaust. Unchallenged, the lesser intellects read it and file it as truth. Sea called you on your baloney, nailed it. Best for all, especially the lesser intellects.

You could have admitted it and we'd have moved right on but the denial is equally bull exhaust and that has too be pointed out.

Should be sufficient by now I'd think.

Originally posted by Nash
I'm not in a contest here.

Me neither; I'm here to learn and to search out truths I don't know. That part of your post simply isn't the truth.

You debate well, you've got a good intellect and it's lots of fun. But that was BS and it can't pass unannounced. Heck, you know you'd think less of me if I did let it pass.  

[Toad]

Sea, thanks a lot. I'll be checking it out. Scanned it when it came up before but not as much as I desired.

Tell me quick and dirty.... is being a Universalist a really, really bad thing?

We'll probably chat more in detail later.

[bustr]

I think I get it with Frist and going to church.

Currently if you look at the Dem's fillibustering of judicial appointees, the issue they are using as a litemous test is the degree of christian beleif and practice of christian ethic of the prospective judge. Basicly bible and 10 commandment beleiving christians or devout catholics need not apply to become a federal judge or member of the supreme court if the Dems have anything to fillibuster about it........

Frist's statements about freedom of religion have to do with the current trend of not allowing christians to be appointed, but instead holding out for secularist or Liberal leaning social christian judges. Having the supreme court and federal courts stacked with Liberals or secularists makes it easy for the Dems to make social policy by Lawyer rather than leave it up to us STOOOPEED "We the People". We tend to be a wee bit more conservitive than they have been unlucky at getting their pet issues made into law by the constitutional method of letting them be voted on.

The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended. So enter the NUK option to change the rules in the Senate so that a majority vote will sufice to end the fillibuster rather than the 60 vote majority.

Currently the Dems would not be able to defeat most any up or down vote if the fillibusters are ended............Frankly the U.S. Constitution as it is, does not recognise a right to not be offended. Which is a good thing.............

[FUNKED1]

Basicly bible and 10 commandment beleiving christians or devout catholics need not apply to become a federal judge or member of the supreme court if the Dems have anything to fillibuster about it.

Bingo.  And THAT is what goes against the spirit of our Constitution, not Frist's remarks.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Strange wording?



It applied solely to the Schiavo case; said so right up front. Only allowed a federal court to review the case.

Congress can pass a law that applies to a single person, as long as the law doesn't penalize or punish a single person or group.

Pretty tough to make that into either an example of passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another or an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

Despite Nash's concern, the Schiavo law isn't a precursor of the Fall of the Republic.......... or any sort of violation of the 1st Amendment.

Seems to punish her to me. but we don't need to get into that again.

2)never saw you get back to me for the faith based initiative stuff, or is that a little tough for you to explain away?

 Like i said that is a clear violation of make no law establishing. To me you start giving taxpayer money to churches, any church that constitutes that you are establishing them.

[bustr]

As long as the Faith Based Initiatives are open to all Religions and not just Bush's denomination, it walks a slippery slope, but it does not preference one beleif over another. Unless you are throwing "All" religions into one hat and are arguing for a totaly secular government.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I could see throwing all interactions with all religions into a hat so to say if you want to loosely read this. But the Faith Based Initiative is not a law establishing a Religion. It's just another scam to get governments hand deeper into our pockets.

So as long as Frist or Billary Clinton are shouting hozanna in public to the masses as a practice of their faith or whatever and not submitting a bill up for law establishing a national religion, there is no violation of the constitution.

Unless you like judicial presidence which usually finds hidden lines in the constitution, like a mothers right to kill her baby, or mens right to bugger each other, Congress is only prohibited from creating a religion by enacting a law. You see a couple a thousand more lines in the first amendment I don't?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
2)never saw you get back to me for the faith based initiative stuff, or is that a little tough for you to explain away?

 

Link that please. I'll answer.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by bustr


The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended.

You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?

And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Raider179
Like i said that is a clear violation of make no law establishing. To me you start giving taxpayer money to churches, any church that constitutes that you are establishing them.

But if the church is already established and has yet to receive any governmental funding, who unestablishes them so that they can be re-established by receiving government funding?  Is unestablishing a church an expressed constitutional function of government?