You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Seperation of Church and State [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Seperation of Church and State


Doctor Manhattan
11-05-2004, 09:19 AM
Why do we even bother with Seperation of Church and State? I think this last election proved too many american's can't seperate the two.

There is no way anyone can tell me Bush was elected because of his current track record as Commander in Chief.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

keithy_19
11-05-2004, 09:20 AM
Maybe he was elected because people think he is doing the right thing.

And geeze, who cares if he prays? I believe Lincoln prayed a lot when he was deciding if he should declare war on the south.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

This message was edited by Keithy_19 on 11-5-04 @ 1:21 PM

GodsFavoriteMan
11-05-2004, 09:23 AM
No one is complaining about his prayers. We're worried about his bringing relgion in as policy.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

ChickenHawk
11-05-2004, 09:26 AM
SKW - Do you know what "Separation of Church and State" actually means? Like, the actual technical definition of it?

Basing your decision of who you're gonna vote for on a religious premise is not illegal. It may not be smart, but it doesn't violate "Separation of Church and State."

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

GodsFavoriteMan
11-05-2004, 09:29 AM
Well, technically it means that the government will not sponser any religion. It seems cut and dry to me, but I suppose it's open to interpretation. But something like school prayer seems like a violation of it (unless of course it's a private or parochial school).

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

ChickenHawk
11-05-2004, 09:33 AM
That's why prayer in public schools is not practiced and if/when it is, it's not mandatory.

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

Doctor Manhattan
11-05-2004, 09:36 AM
Maybe he was elected because people think he is doing the right thing.

Could you break it down for me and tell me what he has done right in his 1st 4 years? just a few examples. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd love to be turned around on this whole thing.



Do you know what "Separation of Church and State" actually means? Like, the actual technical definition of it?

Basing your decision of who you're gonna vote for on a religious premise is not illegal. It may not be smart, but it doesn't violate "Separation of Church and State."


I don't think it's techinically a "law". But the idea was that the government wouldn't make laws limiting people's freedom in respect to religion. They also wouldn't force a particular religion down people's throats.

I don't think people's reasons for voting should be limited. I sometimes wish there was an mininum IQ required to vote (Face it, The Red States would be diminished faster than the Blue) But that's not practical or fair.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

GodsFavoriteMan
11-05-2004, 09:55 AM
That's why prayer in public schools is not practiced and if/when it is, it's not mandatory.


The problem with that, especially here in the south (not so much in cosmopolitan Nashville, but elsewheres in TN) anyone who isn't Christian is in a vast minority. But I can definitely empathize with those of other religious persuasions' sense of being outcast as the rest of the school is praying.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

keithy_19
11-05-2004, 03:13 PM
Some people could agree with his tax cuts, his stances on abortion, the war on terror, his stance on gay marriage, ect...

Just because you may not agree, other people obviously do.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

angrymissy
11-05-2004, 04:04 PM
Back in my crazy teenage days, I used to refuse to say the pledge in homeroom because of the "under god" part.

I had to write an essay on the pledge because of it. I can only imagine how difficult it would be nowadays, especially if something like "optional morning prayer" was put into effect in public schools.

his stance on gay marriage

IMO, this is a prime example of religion dictaing law right there. Same with abortion.

<BR><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/missy2.gif" width="300" height="100" border="1">

This message was edited by angrymissy on 11-5-04 @ 8:06 PM

Doctor Manhattan
11-05-2004, 04:06 PM
My point is, they might as well admit Chruch and State are tied together very closely.

Just be honest.

Religion is what got Bush elected.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

silera
11-05-2004, 06:30 PM
Religion and morality belong in the political discourse and should shape public policy. The original intent of the seperation of church and state, was more to protect the church from the state than the other way around.

I think the problem with the current trend, and the religious right that has propelled Republicans into their secured position in American government isn't that religion is responsible. The problem is that this "religious right" couldn't be more wrong.

Instead of focusing on "love thy neighbor" and "the meek shall inherit the earth", it chooses to affirm aspects of our faith that seperate, judge and dismisses those that don't believe in the tenets of our faith that differentiate it between others- I suppose under the supposition that, that which makes us different makes us superior and more worthy of god's love.

The Republican party has shrouded itself in these issues, all the while directly contradicting the christian faith through its economic, environmental and social policies. I'm a Democrat because I believe very strongly in the greater good. I will say that the Republican platform is that of self interest and personal gain. Sadly, christian Republicans have been convinced that it is not in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Point being, if Republicans were choosing to enact legislation and law that united everyone with the basic moral code that overrides the idiosyncrasies of the bible, I don't think anyone would cry bloody murder, but it's not.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

shocked60
11-05-2004, 06:56 PM
Instead of focusing on "love thy neighbor" and "the meek shall inherit the earth", it chooses to affirm aspects of our faith that seperate, judge and dismisses those that don't believe in the tenets of our faith that differentiate it between others-


Well Put!!

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/shocked60.jpg
Anybody got a biscuit???

Yerdaddy
11-05-2004, 07:06 PM
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06texts.html?pagewanted=print&position=" target="_blank">Health Textbooks in Texas to Change Wording About Marriage</a>

AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 5 (AP) - The Texas Board of Education approved new health textbooks for the state's high schools and middle schools on Friday after the publishers agreed to change wordings in the texts to depict marriage strictly as the union of a man and a woman.

The decision involves two of the biggest textbook publishers and is another example of Texas' exerting its market influence as the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks. Officials say the decision could affect hundreds of thousands of books in Texas alone.

On Thursday, a board member said that proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like "married partners" instead of "husband and wife."

Neither publisher made all the changes that Ms. Leo initially sought. For instance, one passage that was proposed to be added to the teacher's editions read: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide."


<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/politics/06judges.html?ei=5094&en=33c31dbc995e3185&hp=&ex=1099717200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=" target="_blank">Abortion Remark by G.O.P. Senator Puts Heat on Peers</a>

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - Angry conservatives flooded Senate phone and fax lines on Friday demanding that Republicans prevent Senator Arlen Specter from presiding over the Judiciary Committee after he remarked that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate.

Republican lawmakers and top Senate aides, speaking privately for the most part, said the uproar from the right was becoming an impediment for Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania lawmaker who has coveted the chairmanship. They said while it was likely he would still get the post, it was no longer a certainty.

"He is not out of the woods,'' said one Senate aide who is closely monitoring developments on the Judiciary Committee, echoing a sentiment expressed by Republican senators and other party officials.

Most of those Republicans said they initially believed that Mr. Specter's subsequent clarification would protect him. Mr. Specter said he did not mean his remarks as a warning to Mr. Bush not to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who would be inclined to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.

But the Republican officials said that continuing resistance to his taking the chairmanship of the committee that examines judicial nominees was being fanned by conservative talk radio hosts and groups outraged over his comments.

But the conservative groups were not mollified. The Concerned Women of America planned a news conference critical of Mr. Specter on Saturday in Pennsylvania, and Michael Schwartz, the group's vice president for government relations, said his organization would continue to press the case against the lawmaker.

"It is clear to me that with this statement and his past record of performance, Senator Specter has disqualified himself from any right to be considered as chairman of the Judiciary Committee,'' Mr. Schwartz said.

A message distributed electronically by the Family Research Council urged its supporters to call Senate leaders and committee members to lobby against Mr. Specter. "He has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby, and a Specter chairmanship would be disastrous,'' the group said.

Senate offices said the response was intense. "We are getting slammed,'' said Mike Brumas, a spokesman for Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama and a panel member. "Some of them are saying things like they voted for values on Tuesday and this is a slap in the face.''


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This mes

TheMojoPin
11-05-2004, 07:39 PM
This is where many Republicans lose me.

I find the concept of abortion itself something I personally find horrible. That said, there are hundreds of millions of people, at LEAST, around the world who do not. That's not a fluke. To me, "pro-choice" doesn't make me "pro-abortion"...it's the middle ground. That way people who don't want abortions don't have to get them, and those that DO, can.

Sam with things like prayer, or public worship. If it's a public area, or federal building/institution, those things are no-no. If it's a private institution...a home, church, place of worship, private school...go for it!

Why can't we settle on these middle grounds when it comes to religion and public life and government policies?

Why is it all or none?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

monsterone
11-05-2004, 11:06 PM
My point is, they might as well admit Chruch and State are tied together very closely.

Just be honest.

Religion is what got Bush elected.





only b/c the better majority of americans feel the same way.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041105/capt.nyet26311051453.election_religion_nyet263.jpg


and i'm sure in bumblefuck, usa there are schools that have optional prayer. and in sue happy america, i'm not too worried about opting out is too much of a problem.

and if you look at the puritan history of this contry has reflected on today's world, i t think our founding fathers were more interested in keeping religous leader to overshadow the govt

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="gray" size="1">do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
</font>

</center>
<font color= "red" size="6">

Doctor Manhattan
11-06-2004, 06:00 AM
only b/c the better majority of americans feel the same way.


Yes, all the more reason to just drop this "Seperation of Church and State" idea.

Then those judges can put in the 10 commandments in thier courthouses. (I have worked with/around some federal judges and they can pretty much do whatever the hell they like anyway)

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

Doctor Manhattan
11-06-2004, 06:02 AM
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041105/capt.nyet26311051453.election_religion_nyet263.jpg

It still freaks me out how it looks like the Blue states are huddled together in the corners of the country trying to get away from the Red ones.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

Snoogans
11-06-2004, 06:03 AM
dont people see how crazy religion makes them. what is it about that. only 2 things get people fired up like that, religion and badmouthing their sports teams

http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnetSnoogs.jpg
http://snoogans194.blogspot.com/
GO SAWX!!!!!
The worst choke job in the history of sports Snoogans 1, Monitor 0

Doctor Manhattan
11-06-2004, 06:14 AM
dont people see how crazy religion makes them.

No. Crazy people don't know they are crazy.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

Mike Teacher
11-06-2004, 06:25 AM
I don't think it's techinically a "law". But the idea was that the government wouldn't make laws limiting people's freedom in respect to religion. They also wouldn't force a particular religion down people's throats.


Boy Howdy did I study this stuff; fascinating, fascinating.

=

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

=

There it is in the very first clause, the word 'Establishment', and the Establishment clause is the fulcrum upon which the issue is measured for constitution interpretors.

SKW youre right; they wanted neither to be an official sponsor of a religion, nor did they wish to prohibit/make it difficult to practice one's religion.

So the test is often: does the governments actions in a specific arena violate the establishment clause, and here, for schools it gets very tricky.

Can kids pray in school? Absolutely. Can they pray in groups? Can they ask for a prayer room at school? Can they use to school for after schhool CCD classes? What about books in religious schools? Who pays? Should the student/family have to? In public schools they don't [they do, its in the budget...]

There are a few dozen scenarios on this in my 'Teachers and The Law' book, and it's been a tough call.

=

A big issue with many R+F callers/listeners was the foundation of this country with respect to religion. Here's what I get out of all that I've read. For me, it is so utterly evident once you look at the priority they took:

=

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
=

Look at those first three words! It is SO easy to forget, SO easy to not know; the state sponsored religion of england and other european countries were not only state sponsored, they were King and Queen sponsored. And then [and today for some] the King and Queen were seen as literally, not metaphorically, but Literally Chosen By God to rule over the peeps.

We The People = The idea that the law gets handed down from God to Royal to meer Human strips the human of... shit just about anything. We're just prolls who should listen to the king coz hes got Gods ear.

They had the RADICAL [no sarcasm] Idea that a PEOPLE, US, WE, us schlubs, can form and order a system of Government.

NOT a God

NOT a King, but...

[I can hear El Jefe's Voice now]

WE THE PEOPLE

They had the radical notion that human beings could construct an external architecture to a way of life and government, and that is an idea that very very very very very very few on earth throughout history have even considered, much less allowed to practice.

=

From Google:

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well

angrymissy
11-06-2004, 10:34 AM
and i'm sure in bumblefuck, usa there are schools that have optional prayer. and in sue happy america, i'm not too worried about opting out is too much of a problem.

There should be no official policy on "optional" anything when you are in a public school. Say that you happen to be 8 years old and your family is agnostic. All the rest of the kids are praying in the morning during their "optional" prayer time. How does that kid feel being the only one not praying? This is why there should be no offical anything in regards to religion when you are in a public school. If you want your kids praying in school, send em to a goddamned private religious institution.

<BR><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/missy2.gif" width="300" height="100" border="1">

This message was edited by angrymissy on 11-6-04 @ 3:03 PM

LiquidCourage
11-06-2004, 01:37 PM
After living in the Bible belt there for a few months, I've come to the stunning conclusion that seperation of church and state is a good thing. I think it hit me when I saw the "10 Commandmants Quickie Mart" in Pensacola, FL. You can be sure I had no trouble in choosing my duty station of San Diego over South Carolina.

Yerdaddy
11-06-2004, 02:45 PM
Not relevant but I like this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_mar_2002/WatchingU.jpg

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

Furtherman
11-11-2004, 07:11 AM
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

Aristotle


<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

JimBeam
11-11-2004, 11:48 AM
The basis of the " seperation of church & state " means that the gov't can not mandate one religion over another.
It does not mean that an individual voter can not base his vote on his own beliefs in a religion.



I have balls !!!

keithy_19
11-11-2004, 11:57 AM
I agree with JimBeams remark.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

Furtherman
11-11-2004, 12:06 PM
It does not mean that an individual voter can not base his vote on his own beliefs in a religion.


That is true.

However, it is not something up in the sky that you pray to that will ultimately shape your surroundings, your society and even your faith in your fellow man.

That is done by man and man alone. Leaders should look upon the world with open eyes and minds and make decisions based on fact and what will be the ultimate good for their people, so they can progress and improve.

Religion will only cloud these decisions and waste valuable time.

<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

Mike Teacher
11-11-2004, 01:47 PM
That is done by man and man alone.


aka We The People.

Well done.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">