Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Liberal Atheists are at it again.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI don't understand why you're not getting this. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was in response to concerns that there would be a "state religion", and it was made clear -- in a very "religious way", by the way - by Jefferson that there would not be. ......The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
My understanding is that these laws are for the protection of religion and against intrusion by the state and it works the other way too to protect the state against religious intrusion although that aspect is less obvious. A theocratic state is established by definition. For example, it guards against an Islamic state as much as it guards against a Christian one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI don't understand why you're not getting this. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was in response to concerns that there would be a "state religion", and it was made clear -- in a very "religious way", by the way - by Jefferson that there would not be.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
bolding mine, of course
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut you ignore the part where is says "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". In total, it says "Congress should mind its own stinkin' business, and religion ain't it!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostDon't religious minorities have the most to fear from the state establishing or restricting religious expression? Didn't the founding father's distaste for the English church come from the treatment of minority Christian sects? What does the religious majority have to fear if their religion becomes the state church and dissent is made illegal?
The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with protecting religious minorities. It's not the primary purpose, secondary purpose, tertiary purpose; on the contrary, its only purpose is to keep government out of religion. Period. To put it another way, under the First Amendment, religious minorities and religious majorities enjoy equal protection.Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-23-2017, 08:15 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
I agree. However, in what world is calling your opponents' view "superstition" an accurate presentation of their argument? This is why I call you an obvious troll. You know better, yet you make such obviously outrageous statements anyway.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd so too should public schools mind their own stinkin' business when it comes to the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of their students.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWell, let's add you to that list, Jimmy, coming to a Christian-run website lying about your faith designation --- why don't you take your cowardly little deceptive self out of here and mind YOUR own stinkin' business.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCare to substantiate that accusation CP,
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo, you're finally admitting that you've been deceptive about your claim to be an "Agnostic"? You're coming out of the closet, Jimmy?
Originally posted by JimL View PostAdmitted that long ago CP, but there is little difference between the two. If you have no opinion either way, then you don't believe!
Your "explanation" exposed your profound ignorance.
or are you not beholden to the Christian-run website rules concerning accusations of lying here?
Can't wait to see the moderaters spin on this one.
pee-wee.jpgLast edited by Cow Poke; 10-23-2017, 11:59 PM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Tass, again, it does not violate the Constitution as written, that Amendment was never meant to prevent such things as school prayer or religious displays on public property.
There wasn't even that intent by the Founders given what they allowed and even did. Just because 200 years later liberal unconstitutional judges changed the meaning and intent does not make them right.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI find it hilarious and extremely arrogant that liberals today try to ignore 200 years of history and what the founding fathers and the US government actually showing what they meant by the constitution and bill of rights by allowing prayer in school and religious displays on government property --- and claim they now know what they "really meant" and they really meant that there should be a complete separation of church and state.If they actually believed that back then, then why did they not implement it that way for 200 years?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDepends on what religion the state establishes, doesn't it? It would seem to me that if the state establishes a religion then it will be the religion of those who happen to be in power, which won't necessarily be the religion of the majority, or perhaps a corrupted version of what the majority practices . I would say that every person who practices religion has something to fear when those in power get it in their heads to usurp the church, which is basically what happened when the English government established the Church of England.
The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with protecting religious minorities. It's not the primary purpose, secondary purpose, tertiary purpose; on the contrary, its only purpose is to keep government out of religion. Period. To put it another way, under the First Amendment, religious minorities and religious majorities enjoy equal protection.
* as per the First AmendmentLast edited by Psychic Missile; 10-24-2017, 12:47 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Juvenal, Today, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
2 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Juvenal
Today, 02:50 PM
|
||
Started by RumTumTugger, Today, 02:30 PM
|
0 responses
8 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 02:30 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 12:07 PM
|
2 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:57 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
19 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
3 responses
40 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:45 AM
|
Comment