Separation of Church and State

[Nash]

Okay but before we go on this particular ride....

The quote we're on was a portion of a sentence in a broader point.

As if calling people from bed, and as if calling the President back to Washinton from vacation wasn't a part of it.

In the world according to you:

"Enacting unprecedented law, creating an unprecedented circus, based on what you personally think, about one case, out of millions, is insanity."

... is all that matters?

As if to say that everything they do is okay as long it's what they personally think?

Before we go there, which I'll certainly do, please let me in on the direction of your narrow course.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
OMG... you think a vote of 203-58 doesn't show what went on?

OMG.. the Senate passed it by voice vote;  that doesn't show you what went on?

Yeah Toad. Yeah.

Either you don't think I know about it, or I don't think you do.

Or maybe you're just playing to the audience.

[FUNKED1]

The only thing I can conclude is that Nash does not think that voters or their elected representatives have a right to base their decisions on their personal values if those values have a religious basis.  

That's cool.  He's in Canada.  They can do whatever they want up there.  

We're in the USA.  We have a long tradition of religious tolerance and diversity.  Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, whatever.  You can pray and speak and vote however you want.  Regardless of whether you are a private citizen or an elected official.

You do it your way, we do it our way, good times.

[Toad]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
"Legislators should base their votes on Law."
That's redundant.

So let's try your second answer.

"Legislators should base their votes on the Constitution."

Please show how the federal Schiavo legislation was unconstitutional.

OK, Funk... NOW do you think it's strawman or do you REALLY think he's completely clueless as to what the First says?

Nash, you are right about one thing. There is no basis for discussion.

You are either using a strawman to entertain yourself or you really don't know jack about the US Constitution and the three branches of government while refusing to take a few minutes to learn it.

Glad I went to watch Deadwood. This thread is like your last.

It's either a deliberate strawman or a strawman because you don't understand what you discuss.

Sorry, but there it is.

[FUNKED1]

Toad I don't know.  Nash is a smart, talented, humorous, well mannered person.  I'm going to assume we are just having a barrier of understanding due to the impersonal communication method in use.  I'm sure we could work it all out in a bar.

This is getting dumb anyways.  I voted against Bush, would vote against Frist if I had the chance, and I think those church officials are idiots.  Not much basis for argument.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Either you don't think I know about it,

That's it right there. I don't think you do.

How many Representatives are there? What's the split Dem/Rep? What do the vote totals tell you in light of these two facts? When does the Senate use a voice vote and for what reason? What are the oppositions options if they don't want a voice vote?

Go ahead, show me how much you understand.

[Nash]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
The only thing I can conclude is that Nash does not think that voters or their elected representatives have a right to base their decisions on their personal values if those values have a religious basis.  

That's cool.  He's in Canada.  They can do whatever they want up there.  

We're in the USA.  We have a long tradition of religious tolerance and diversity.  Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, whatever.  You can pray and speak and vote however you want.  Regardless of whether you are a private citizen or an elected official.

You do it your way, we do it our way, good times.

heh... What a cop-out.

As long as you want to turn this into us-vs-them, then okay.... that's the problem with you guys. I can't tell if the truth is too hard for you to handle, or if it's too complicated, or what....

But you didn't say jack **** with yer last post.

[Nash]

Toad, the fact that you are mentioning the vote count is a display of your ignorance on what happened.

Now either you are trying to fool me or someone else....

Which is it?

[Nash]

Toad, why don't you just spare me an analysis of my argument style and instead just argue. Mmmmkay?

I don't think I'm throwing out straw men here.... but if it makes it easier for you to discount everything I say to accuse me of it... well.... That's yer crutch aint it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Toad I don't know.  Nash is a smart, talented, humorous, well mannered person.

[/b]

Agree without reservation.

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm going to assume we are just having a barrier of understanding due to the impersonal communication method in use.

[/b]

Disagree. He is too smart, and talented to misunderstand without even trying to verify his position. There's ample material available to show that the point he is trying to make is a strawman argument if one reads/understands the First.

Originally posted by FUNKED1
This is getting dumb anyways.  

It's a dumb as when one of the Euros complains that Americans are stifiling his free speech whenever someone disagrees with them.  

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I voted against Bush, would vote against Frist if I had the chance, and I think those church officials are idiots.  Not much basis for argument.

[/b]

I didn't vote for Bush, think Frist is no better and no worse than say... Robert Byrd and the other featherbedding jerkoffs that constitute the remaining 90% of our National Legislature, think about 90% any churches officials are clueless and can see that you and I would spend our time drinking rather than arguing in a bar.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Toad, the fact that you are mentioning the vote count is a display of your ignorance on what happened.

Now either you are trying to fool me or someone else....

Which is it?

I think you're fooling yourself.

You think they did it all in secret and didn't tell the Dems there was a meeting? The Dems had as much time to get back as the Reps did.

Further, and this is KEY... there's NOTHING in the Constitution that precludes a law such as this.

Again, you don't understand the First with regards to religion.

[Nash]

Okay.... Last thing I'm gonna say about this.

Your country can't afford people like you to play dumb.

At a certain point, something's gotta give. If it doesn't start, nay even happen at all with the bright people, then where from? And with what consequence?

Thassit.

you two.

G'night!

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Toad, why don't you just spare me an analysis of my argument style and instead just argue.  

There's nothing to argue.

Sorry. You just don't understand the First.

Didn't read the link did you?

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. .

It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited.


The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

[/b]

Now, tell me... how is the Schiavo law an example of passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another?

Next, tell me how the Schiavo law an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion?

Go ahead.

I'm hitting the sack and will check back in the morning.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Your country can't afford people like you to play dumb.

True, and neither Funk nor I is playing dumb.

OTOH, our country can afford any number of Canucks that don't understand our Constitution.

[Seagoon]

Hello Nash,

Originally posted by Nash
Sorry, I don't think ya get off that easy.

Do I ever?

Abandoned by whom? The Democrats attending the church?

Who abandoned what, here?

Really.

Nash, I could be wrong, but I'm getting the impression you missed the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. The real issue is that this congregation isn't functioning as a church, its functioning as a social club. The fact that politics have become their primary concern, rather than the commission given to the church in the bible is the problem.
The problem isn't "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" in the congregation. It's the fact that the congregation has made who is a democrat and who is  republican its concern, rather than the primary biblical concern - making believers (note the lack of party affiliation in the statement  " And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women" (Acts 5:14) )

Theologians sometimes classify the three marks of the true church as being:
1) The Gospel is preached
2) The Sacraments are administered as they were instituted by Christ
3) Church discipline as it is set forth in the bible is rightly practiced.

From the description in the article, this church is apparently failing outright on #3 and seriously confusing #1.

There it is again. "Both sides cynically using religion for political gain". But nobody... NOBODY....  can point out an example of how the left uses the church for political gain. It's like one of those things that gets said so much it becomes accepted.

Oh, come on Nash. Surely you don't really believe that? You are really unaware that Al Gore and Bill Clinton campaigned in liberal black churches? That liberal churches frequently conduct "get out the vote drives" for the Democrats? That left-leaning churches fall all over themselves to make their pulpits available to candidates like  Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barrack Obama? That People For the American Way and many, many, other liberal pacs receive support and assistance from liberal denominations and churchmen. Do you really need a list of links to click on?

Many theologically liberal denoms these days, like the Unitarian Universalists, define themselves primarily in terms of social activism, and the General Assemblies, Conventions, and Synods, of several denoms. spend FAR more time issuing proclamations denouncing big tobacco, condemning Israel, and pushing a legislative agenda than they do debating issues of religion and spirituality.

For instance at the 212th assembly of the PCUSA they called for:
*Campaign Finance Reform
*Police "Accountability"
*"Lifting the ban on federal funds for support of needle exchange programs "
*"an immediate moratorium on all executions in all jurisdictions that impose capital punishment"
*"working to remove the Confederate flag from government facilities where laws and public policies are developed and enacted"
*Gun Control
*"that the U.S. Navy permanently stop all military training and bombing on the island of Vieques "

And the PCUSA isn't even in the really, really, left wing denominations category. You'd be amazed at the things the Unitarian Universalists and the UCC call for when they get together, they make MOVEON.ORG seem moderate.

The politicizing of the church has been a problem since Constantine's day, and it always destroys the true spirituality of the church, doesn't matter whether the politicization is on the left or the right.

- SEAGOON