Author Topic: Separation of Church and State (Read 2895 times)

Nash · « **Reply #30 on:** May 08, 2005, 09:27:39 PM »

Ging bok choi mah?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #31 on:** May 08, 2005, 09:32:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Can you at least agree that they are at odds with your Constitutional principles?

That would make me feel very much less insane.

I can't say that based on what I've read. The Constitution has no bearing on the internal affairs of a church congregation.
And Frist has a right to his religious views and free speech. I think he's probably overstating the case regarding the filibuster, but it's clear to me that there is a part of the DNC that is clearly biased against Christians and their beliefs, which is definitely not in the spirit of religious tolerance from which the "separation" is derived. They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots". Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Nash · « **Reply #32 on:** May 08, 2005, 09:44:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I can't say that based on what I've read. The Constitution has no bearing on the internal affairs of a church congregation.
And Frist has a right to his religious views and free speech.

Frist, the leader of the United States Senate, which is but one of the three branches of government, aligns himself in an attack on another branch of government, based on religion.

He attacks his own branch of government's procedures, based on religion.

I don't know how you can divorce yourself from the reality of that, and claim that it has nothing to do with the seperation of powers, and then claim that it's no threat.

You just said that you were unaware of any of this, then upon finding it, would not piss on Frist were he on fire. On what basis if not this?

Nash · « **Reply #33 on:** May 08, 2005, 09:49:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
"...it's clear to me that there is a part of the DNC that is clearly biased against Christians and their beliefs, which is definitely not in the spirit of religious tolerance from which the "separation" is derived. They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots". Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion, but two wrongs don't make a right."

Ah, now it's your turn to substantiate that.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 08, 2005, 09:56:27 PM »

I didn't say anything about separation of powers. That's a different concept from "church and state".

Criticising another branch is not at odds with the Constitution. Nor is criticism of his colleagues in Congress.

The one thing I read from Frist that really pissed me off was his inclusion of "marriage, families and a culture of life that protects human dignity at every stage of development" in an agenda for Congress. Culture, marriage, families, none of the government's $@#$ing business.

Nash · « **Reply #35 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:05:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I didn't say anything about separation of powers. That's a different concept from "church and state".

Criticising another branch is not at odds with the Constitution. Nor is criticism of his colleagues in Congress.

Yet, all of it.... is based on religion.

It is not as if he's saying that the Judiciary is wrong because they are, I don't know, slackers...

No.... It came directly as a result of Schiavo. Do we have to pretend?

Criticizing his own branch comes not as a result of....heh... filibusters run amok.

It is based on the fact that they aren't able to railroad judges into place.... which is seen by him and them as an afront to their religious freedoms.

This is turning quickly back into that other thread where reality is not being accepted for what it is. It's a given. At least argue the merits of the stance - not repeat that it doesn't exist.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #36 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:11:07 PM »

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. There's nothing unethical or unconstitutional in having political views based on one's faith.

*I edited, sorry*

Nash · « **Reply #37 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:13:45 PM »

Yeah, absolutely.

And I would think that the very 1st principle would be that you didn't act like the foundation of another's argument simply isn't there.

I've made the case for its existence.

I didn't in the other thread because I thought it was already evident. I was wrong. It obviously wasn't.

But here it is.

Now what?

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:14:08 PM »

This argument of yours fails for the exact reason the last argument fails.

You apparently don't understand the First.

But I'll leave you to make up your own First and then argue that it's being violated.

Nash · « **Reply #39 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:14:36 PM »

Dang.... yer editing on me.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:17:38 PM »

Yeah I'm sorry. I'm forgetting what your original argument was in the first place.

Nash · « **Reply #41 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:19:18 PM »

Toad...

Sung tok choi bo.

(Just say what's on yer mind).

I aint down with your.... whatever. If you think your.... whatever.... is making sense to me then you'd be wrong.

What are you saying?

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:23:09 PM »

Ciò è una discussione dell'uomo di paglia.

Nash · « **Reply #43 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:25:24 PM »

Okay yeah.... righto.

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** May 08, 2005, 10:26:48 PM »

What, you don't think foreign language is way kewl?

or are you denying it?