Separation of Church and State

[FUNKED1]

And "state" has exactly what relationship to this story?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Nash
I'm just funnin' ya, Sixpence.

I attempted to cover the same ground a few weeks ago, after the Republican leader of the US Senate was fresh off an appearence at a huge religious rally condemning the judiciary, and supporting the notion that the filibuster was attack on religious freedom.

It was like nobody knew what I was talking about. Like Dinger said, if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.

Sorry for the troll... I just wanted to know what it felt like to be so oblivious.

Holy crap Nash, you are whining about that?  That was even lamer than this thread.  You just posted some retarded crap out of the blue, with nothing to back it up, just your general feelings from watching TV shows about the USA or wherever you get your misinformation.  At least Sixpence had an actual story to work with, even if he has badly misinterpreted the implications of the story.

[Nash]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
And "state" has exactly what relationship to this story?

State would imply government.

Government implies, among other things, political parties.

When you have a Church kicking out members of one political party, then it's not difficult to see what "state's" relationship to this story is.

Unless you think this is about, like, states as in the state of North Carolina.

[FUNKED1]

Great, you've established a semantic relationship.  But the concept of "separation of church and state" has to do with the state making laws regarding religion.  There's nothing at all Sixpence's story that even remotely deals with that.  There's no mention of government involvement at all.  He did, at least, get closer to constructing an argument than you did.

[FUNKED1]

if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.

Please demonstrate how, in the thread you referenced, you applied any reasonable principles of argument.  You are putting us on, right?

[Nash]

Funked, I thought it was common knowledge. I didn't think I'd have to learn ya about it. I took the reaction as a complete disregard of the situation. I figured that if you won't even accept what's going on as going on, then what's the point? I can't work with that. I at least expected someone to defend it.... but not pretend that it didn't exist. It was useless because of that.

How many posts of this nature are you going to write off?

[FUNKED1]

I'll write off every alarmist post with no basis in fact or the principles of argument.  If you've got a point, make it.  If you are just going to generalize with zero support for your position, go screw.  

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Nash
I'm just funnin' ya, Sixpence.

I attempted to cover the same ground a few weeks ago, after the Republican leader of the US Senate was fresh off an appearence at a huge religious rally condemning the judiciary, and supporting the notion that the filibuster was attack on religious freedom.

It was like nobody knew what I was talking about. Like Dinger said, if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.

Sorry for the troll... I just wanted to know what it felt like to be so oblivious.

Yeah, kinda the same point I guess. Makes you shake your head when someone uses religion to rally people around a political agenda. And even more so when they are successful.

I noticed Toad posted Jefferson's letter to the Baptists in Danbury. If you read some old Puritan laws and know of the Salem witch trials, you kind of get an understanding of why he would write this.

[Nash]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'll write off every alarmist post with no basis in fact or the principles of argument.

Okay, well then lets revisit it.

Assuming that you were unaware of Frist just comming off of a televised appearance at a religious rally condemning the justice system, and lending support to the idea that the fillibuster is but an attack on religeous freedoms, what do you think about it?

And where do you think this falls with regard to church and state, as it's clear that you don't think this latest kicking out of Democrats from church has anything to do with it?

[FUNKED1]

Well you said nothing about that in the previous thread.  I'm not familiar with Frist or the story.

[Nash]

Well, my bad.

[FUNKED1]

I found the story.  I wouldn't piss on Frist if he was on fire.  I think Chandler is a doofus.  I don't think either man is any threat to our Constitutional principles.

[hawker238]

I don't get it, the article didn't say they were evil Catholics.

[Nash]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think Chandler is a doofus.  I don't think either man is any threat to our Constitutional principles.

Can you at least agree that they are at odds with your Constitutional principles?

That would make me feel very much less insane.

[Toad]

Just goes to show that while a lot of non-US commentators on the American scene are familiar with our Constitutional "buzzwords", many of them know little or nothing about the actual substance behind them.

The First Amendment is a prime example; who hasn't heard of "Freedom of Speech" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

Many of course confuse Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801, the famous "Wall of Separation" letter with our Constitution. That letter is where the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originates. Many people make the mistake of thinking that "Separation of church and state" is a constitutional tenet that prohibits any mention of religion by politicians.

It is not.

The First is a clear, simple statement.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.