Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Lokiate]

Says the dumbfuck that can't even write a response without resorting to childish insults.

Way to go.

Thanks. Whatever I can do to help. That's me.

There's no irony here, it's an observable fact that you are, indeed, a dumbfuck.

 

[BDBoop]

"Render unto Caesar that which is due unto Caesar" would seem to indicate "pay your taxes", for anybody following along from a Christian perspective.

It does. It doesn't mean that you should not campaign for lower taxes though.

Mike

The time to do that, one would think, is when taxes are high. Yes?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Render unto Caesar that which is due unto Caesar" would seem to indicate "pay your taxes", for anybody following along from a Christian perspective.

It does. It doesn't mean that you should not campaign for lower taxes though.

Mike

The time to do that, one would think, is when taxes are high. Yes?

Taxes, like government spending, can never be too low.

 

[Intense]

Separation of Church and State is a Christian concept. Get over it.

<< Matthew 22:21 >>

New International Version (©1984)
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Caesar's," they replied. "Well, then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."

English Standard Version (©2001)
They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

International Standard Version (©2008)
They said to him, "Caesar's." So he said to them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
They replied, "The emperor's." Then he said to them, "Very well, give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God."

King James Bible
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

American King James Version
They say to him, Caesar's. Then said he to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.

American Standard Version
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Bible in Basic English
They say to him, Caesar's. Then he said to them, Give to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's.

Douay-Rheims Bible
They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Darby Bible Translation
They say to him, Caesar's. Then he says to them, Pay then what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God.

English Revised Version
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Webster's Bible Translation
They say to him, Cesar's. Then saith he to them, Render therefore to Cesar, the things which are Cesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Weymouth New Testament
"Caesar's," they replied. "Pay therefore," He rejoined, "what is Caesar's to Caesar; and what is God's to God."

World English Bible
They said to him, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Young's Literal Translation
they say to him, 'Caesar's;' then saith he to them, 'Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;'

Matthew 22:21 "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

LOL. Wait. Your argument for separation of church and state is because it is part of a religion? You realize what you're saying right? Just curious.(By the way that is an asinine interpretation of the passage, no matter how many different translations you use)


Mike

Tell it to John Locke, Idiot.

 

[Intense]

"Render unto Caesar that which is due unto Caesar" would seem to indicate "pay your taxes", for anybody following along from a Christian perspective.

Yes. Money is of Caesar. Conscience and Salvation are of God.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. Cont......

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[Foxfyre]

It does. It doesn't mean that you should not campaign for lower taxes though.

Mike

The time to do that, one would think, is when taxes are high. Yes?

Taxes, like government spending, can never be too low.

Yeah they can be too low. The Constitution intended that the Federal government defend we the people against all enemies, domestic and foreign, protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and constitutional rights, and promote the general welfare meaning for all the people, not some designated as winners and some as losers in the process. There must be some federal regualtion of imports, of interstate communications and commerce, of shared air, oceans, shared waterways, etc.

All that requires funding and it is important that EVERY American with means to do so kick in a fair proportion of that funding. When only some provide the funding, some have no stake in the system and no incentive to maintain the integrity of it.

To fail to adequately fund the necessary functions could keep the federal government from fulfilling its constitutional obligations and that would weaken us all.

But that's where it should end. The Federal government should not be spending money on ANYTHING that benefits one state and not another, one group and not another, one person and not another. And no elected official or appointed or employed bureaucrat should be able to use the system to empower and enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State; however, the Establishment Clause as rendered by the Court since the Warren era, which disregards the equally compelling demands of the Free Exercise Clause, has all but erased the fundamental rights of individual liberty (i.e., ideological free association) and parental authority within the public education system, for example. And the Warren Court's Soviet-style imposition of the construct has encouraged a generation of leftists to believe that religious expression within the political sphere should be banished. They are idiots, of course, but not because they fail to understand the ramifications of the Warren Court's gibberish, which resides in a make believe world where educational and cultural institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

You forgot to cite case law in support of the above, otherwise it’s merely subjective, meaningless opinion.

While we wait here are additional cases post Warren Court where the doctrine of separation of church and State in the context of the Establishment Clause is affirmed; these determinations are accepted and settled law:

Burger Court:

Stone v. Graham (1980) – Ruled un-Constitutional a Kentucky law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) – Ruled un-Constitutional an Alabama law that authorized teachers to conduct prayers and religious activities in public schools during the school day.

Rehnquist Court:

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - Ruled un-Constitutional a Louisiana law authorizing the teaching of 'creation science’ in public schools.

Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) - Pennsylvania case where a creche inside a courthouse endorsed Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. Note that the ruling does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, as the practice of Christianity is not effected.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) – Ruled un-Constitutional in Providence, RI the practice of clergy reciting prayers in public schools during the school day.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) Ruled un-Constitutional in Texas school district student-lead prayers during before a football game.

Note the Warren Court is not alone in such findings; indeed, had these subsequent conservative Courts found error in any of the Warren cases those cases would have been overturned. Instead they were affirmed.

 

[Texanmike]

"Render unto Caesar that which is due unto Caesar" would seem to indicate "pay your taxes", for anybody following along from a Christian perspective.

It does. It doesn't mean that you should not campaign for lower taxes though.

Mike

The time to do that, one would think, is when taxes are high. Yes?

I would say that it is any time that "Caesar" is taking my money with the intention of giving it to another individual.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

I don't have a problem with the classical construct of Separation of Church and State; however, the Establishment Clause as rendered by the Court since the Warren era, which disregards the equally compelling demands of the Free Exercise Clause, has all but erased the fundamental rights of individual liberty (i.e., ideological free association) and parental authority within the public education system, for example. And the Warren Court's Soviet-style imposition of the construct has encouraged a generation of leftists to believe that religious expression within the political sphere should be banished. They are idiots, of course, but not because they fail to understand the ramifications of the Warren Court's gibberish, which resides in a make believe world where educational and cultural institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

You forgot to cite case law in support of the above, otherwise it’s merely subjective, meaningless opinion.

While we wait here are additional cases post Warren Court where the doctrine of separation of church and State in the context of the Establishment Clause is affirmed; these determinations are accepted and settled law:

Burger Court:

Stone v. Graham (1980) – Ruled un-Constitutional a Kentucky law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) – Ruled un-Constitutional an Alabama law that authorized teachers to conduct prayers and religious activities in public schools during the school day.

Rehnquist Court:

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - Ruled un-Constitutional a Louisiana law authorizing the teaching of 'creation science’ in public schools.

Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) - Pennsylvania case where a creche inside a courthouse endorsed Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. Note that the ruling does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, as the practice of Christianity is not effected.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) – Ruled un-Constitutional in Providence, RI the practice of clergy reciting prayers in public schools during the school day.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) Ruled un-Constitutional in Texas school district student-lead prayers during before a football game.

Note the Warren Court is not alone in such findings; indeed, had these subsequent conservative Courts found error in any of the Warren cases those cases would have been overturned. Instead they were affirmed.

But you see, the question isn't "has a court determined something to be unconstitutional" it is "is it unconstitutional". The fact that the court adopts an "establishment clause doctrine" is problematic in and of itself, isn't it? I mean I know that you like this particular doctrine so you're inclined to say "no, there's nothing wrong with it." but a court simply yielding to "general consensus" or even to "stare decesis" seems to be contrary to the idea of an impartial judgeship. If you ask me, the fact the the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, rules one way or another is not indicative of right and wrong but rather of the political polarization of that particular court.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The time to do that, one would think, is when taxes are high. Yes?

Taxes, like government spending, can never be too low.

Yeah they can be too low. The Constitution intended that the Federal government defend we the people against all enemies, domestic and foreign, protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and constitutional rights, and promote the general welfare meaning for all the people, not some designated as winners and some as losers in the process. There must be some federal regualtion of imports, of interstate communications and commerce, of shared air, oceans, shared waterways, etc.

All that requires funding and it is important that EVERY American with means to do so kick in a fair proportion of that funding. When only some provide the funding, some have no stake in the system and no incentive to maintain the integrity of it.

To fail to adequately fund the necessary functions could keep the federal government from fulfilling its constitutional obligations and that would weaken us all.

But that's where it should end. The Federal government should not be spending money on ANYTHING that benefits one state and not another, one group and not another, one person and not another. And no elected official or appointed or employed bureaucrat should be able to use the system to empower and enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

Its funny that you should say that. The Constitution didn't intend for the government to protect anything other than the states. It doesn't say the general welfare of the people of the united states, it says the general welfare of the united states. It was the union that they were worried about preserving, see the bicameral legislature debates. They didn't speak about the welfare of the people, they spoke of the liberty of the people.

Also they didn't intend for us to be taxed for our labor. We paid for the government, for the most part, with tariffs.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxes, like government spending, can never be too low.

Yeah they can be too low. The Constitution intended that the Federal government defend we the people against all enemies, domestic and foreign, protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and constitutional rights, and promote the general welfare meaning for all the people, not some designated as winners and some as losers in the process. There must be some federal regualtion of imports, of interstate communications and commerce, of shared air, oceans, shared waterways, etc.

All that requires funding and it is important that EVERY American with means to do so kick in a fair proportion of that funding. When only some provide the funding, some have no stake in the system and no incentive to maintain the integrity of it.

To fail to adequately fund the necessary functions could keep the federal government from fulfilling its constitutional obligations and that would weaken us all.

But that's where it should end. The Federal government should not be spending money on ANYTHING that benefits one state and not another, one group and not another, one person and not another. And no elected official or appointed or employed bureaucrat should be able to use the system to empower and enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

Its funny that you should say that. The Constitution didn't intend for the government to protect anything other than the states. It doesn't say the general welfare of the people of the united states, it says the general welfare of the united states. It was the union that they were worried about preserving, see the bicameral legislature debates. They didn't speak about the welfare of the people, they spoke of the liberty of the people.

Also they didn't intend for us to be taxed for our labor. We paid for the government, for the most part, with tariffs.

Mike

The Founders wrote exhaustively on the subject of the general welfare and it absolutely was intended to refer to the people. The Founders saw unalienable rights as coming from God and given to each PERSON. Not each state.

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.

And in the Founders mind, the Preamble was the sum of the intent of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: &#8220;The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .&#8221;

The preamble defines the three major functions of a central federal government: (1) ensuring personal freedom/liberty, (2) to establish a society in which individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers, criminals, and predators, and; (3) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

The general welfare was that shared by all, and did not mean any group or entity or individual.

Everything else was to be left to the states to do.

And to bring that into focus on this thread, it was a function of the federal government to protect each person's unalienable right to believe and practice and speak about their religion or no religion as he/she sees fit. An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by anybody else but only requires their non interference.

The necessary functions of government do have to be funded though. And a users tax is maybe the most fair way to do it, but may not always be the most practical. I don't have any problem with how NECESSARY taxes are collected but see it as most fair when they are paid evenly and fairly at the same rate across the board by all citizens.

 

[Texanmike]

Yeah they can be too low. The Constitution intended that the Federal government defend we the people against all enemies, domestic and foreign, protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and constitutional rights, and promote the general welfare meaning for all the people, not some designated as winners and some as losers in the process. There must be some federal regualtion of imports, of interstate communications and commerce, of shared air, oceans, shared waterways, etc.

All that requires funding and it is important that EVERY American with means to do so kick in a fair proportion of that funding. When only some provide the funding, some have no stake in the system and no incentive to maintain the integrity of it.

To fail to adequately fund the necessary functions could keep the federal government from fulfilling its constitutional obligations and that would weaken us all.

But that's where it should end. The Federal government should not be spending money on ANYTHING that benefits one state and not another, one group and not another, one person and not another. And no elected official or appointed or employed bureaucrat should be able to use the system to empower and enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

Its funny that you should say that. The Constitution didn't intend for the government to protect anything other than the states. It doesn't say the general welfare of the people of the united states, it says the general welfare of the united states. It was the union that they were worried about preserving, see the bicameral legislature debates. They didn't speak about the welfare of the people, they spoke of the liberty of the people.

Also they didn't intend for us to be taxed for our labor. We paid for the government, for the most part, with tariffs.

Mike

The Founders wrote exhaustively on the subject of the general welfare and it absolutely was intended to refer to the people. The Founders saw unalienable rights as coming from God and given to each PERSON. Not each state.

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.

And in the Founders mind, the Preamble was the sum of the intent of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble defines the three major functions of a central federal government: (1) ensuring personal freedom/liberty, (2) to establish a society in which individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers, criminals, and predators, and; (3) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

The general welfare was that shared by all, and did not mean any group or entity or individual.

Everything else was to be left to the states to do.

And to bring that into focus on this thread, it was a function of the federal government to protect each person's unalienable right to believe and practice and speak about their religion or no religion as he/she sees fit. An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation by anybody else but only requires their non interference.

The necessary functions of government do have to be funded though. And a users tax is maybe the most fair way to do it, but may not always be the most practical. I don't have any problem with how NECESSARY taxes are collected but see it as most fair when they are paid evenly and fairly at the same rate across the board by all citizens.

The general welfare didn't mean a group or groups of people. The purpose of the Constitution was to keep a Union of sovereign states together. The idea that there was to be some uniform law or that the individual was to look to the federal government for their posterity is preposterous. The Constitution does not permit congress (though they do anyway) to tax one person in order to give that money to another individual. That was never the intention. Government isn't supposed to provide for the welfare of the individual, it is supposed to not get in the way of it. Even the DoI (a non-binding/non-legal document for any purpose other than declaring that we were no longer part of GB) does not say that the government should issue posterity to every individual. The Constitution doesn't make such a claim either.

Your response more clearly defines what you were trying to say though. I thought that from the post I replied to, that you were saying it is the federal government's job to feed/clothe people etc. The Constitution was never meant to protect non constitutional rights though. It was meant to allow society to redefine those rights through amendments. That unfortunately does not happen.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

One quick question, let's put aside whether or not the Constitution says or implies it, but can I ask why there's people on this thread who are saying separation of church and state is or would be a bad thing?

I would think the more religious you are, the more you'd want such a separation so government can never take your religious rights away or promote a religion other than yours.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

 

[Texanmike]

One quick question, let's put aside whether or not the Constitution says or implies it, but can I ask why there's people on this thread who are saying separation of church and state is or would be a bad thing?

I would think the more religious you are, the more you'd want such a separation so government can never take your religious rights away or promote a religion other than yours.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

I'll give it a shot:

I'm religious in my own right, though not as much as some out there. I don't necessarily want a separation of church and state so long as I have the ability to move into or out of a government of my choosing. I'm not looking for blanket Church and State integration, I'm looking for the ability to move in and out of the sphere of influence that I want. If you have a city of 300 people and 299 of them want something like a law banning the slaughter of pigs in their jurisdiction, let them have it. The 300th person can make a decision of whether or not that imposes too much on his life.

Why would you want to grant the federal government so much power that it can dictate the amount of influence your local government can have in your life? Why is there this push for a blanket solution to 309million people's lives? Surely it makes more sense to have several smaller governments exacting different levels of control and giving the citizens of the country the ability to move to a place that most closely resmbles their desired level of freedom. I would think the answer to most social issues is let the local community make that call.

I tend to believe that almost any universal application of law in the country is a bad thing unless there is a clear super majority (like 75%+) that want such an application. If 50% of the country wants to live in a place where there are things like religious symbols in their public square or some sort of religious laws then so be it. Why would you condemn that 50% to the tyranny of the other 50%? Why would you subject the 50% who doesn't want church and state integration to the tyranny of the first 50%? Why not allow local comunities to dictate such behavior and at least everyone has the ability to move somewhere that gives them a shot at happniess. Now if someone chooses to stay in a place that doesn't suit them then that is no them.



Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

One quick question, let's put aside whether or not the Constitution says or implies it, but can I ask why there's people on this thread who are saying separation of church and state is or would be a bad thing?

I would think the more religious you are, the more you'd want such a separation so government can never take your religious rights away or promote a religion other than yours.

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

I'll give it a shot:

I'm religious in my own right, though not as much as some out there. I don't necessarily want a separation of church and state so long as I have the ability to move into or out of a government of my choosing. I'm not looking for blanket Church and State integration, I'm looking for the ability to move in and out of the sphere of influence that I want. If you have a city of 300 people and 299 of them want something like a law banning the slaughter of pigs in their jurisdiction, let them have it. The 300th person can make a decision of whether or not that imposes too much on his life.

Why would you want to grant the federal government so much power that it can dictate the amount of influence your local government can have in your life? Why is there this push for a blanket solution to 309million people's lives? Surely it makes more sense to have several smaller governments exacting different levels of control and giving the citizens of the country the ability to move to a place that most closely resmbles their desired level of freedom. I would think the answer to most social issues is let the local community make that call.

I tend to believe that almost any universal application of law in the country is a bad thing unless there is a clear super majority (like 75%+) that want such an application. If 50% of the country wants to live in a place where there are things like religious symbols in their public square or some sort of religious laws then so be it. Why would you condemn that 50% to the tyranny of the other 50%? Why would you subject the 50% who doesn't want church and state integration to the tyranny of the first 50%? Why not allow local comunities to dictate such behavior and at least everyone has the ability to move somewhere that gives them a shot at happniess. Now if someone chooses to stay in a place that doesn't suit them then that is no them.



Mike

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Tell it to John Locke, Idiot.

That is exactly right! The preeminent political philosopher of the Founders is John Locke. And who is John Locke but the man who hammered out his political philosophy in the Two Treatises of Civil Government, the political theory of natural law directly extrapolated from the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, which included a construct of separation, albeit, not lefty's idiotic rendition that virtually disregards the imperatives of individual liberty.

As I said before, Lefty does not know the history of thought behind his political heritage; he does not grasp the distinction between the democratic theory of Continental Europe and that of the Anglo-American tradition.

 

[Texanmike]

Sure wish I would've gotten an answer to this question .

I'll give it a shot:

I'm religious in my own right, though not as much as some out there. I don't necessarily want a separation of church and state so long as I have the ability to move into or out of a government of my choosing. I'm not looking for blanket Church and State integration, I'm looking for the ability to move in and out of the sphere of influence that I want. If you have a city of 300 people and 299 of them want something like a law banning the slaughter of pigs in their jurisdiction, let them have it. The 300th person can make a decision of whether or not that imposes too much on his life.

Why would you want to grant the federal government so much power that it can dictate the amount of influence your local government can have in your life? Why is there this push for a blanket solution to 309million people's lives? Surely it makes more sense to have several smaller governments exacting different levels of control and giving the citizens of the country the ability to move to a place that most closely resmbles their desired level of freedom. I would think the answer to most social issues is let the local community make that call.

I tend to believe that almost any universal application of law in the country is a bad thing unless there is a clear super majority (like 75%+) that want such an application. If 50% of the country wants to live in a place where there are things like religious symbols in their public square or some sort of religious laws then so be it. Why would you condemn that 50% to the tyranny of the other 50%? Why would you subject the 50% who doesn't want church and state integration to the tyranny of the first 50%? Why not allow local comunities to dictate such behavior and at least everyone has the ability to move somewhere that gives them a shot at happniess. Now if someone chooses to stay in a place that doesn't suit them then that is no them.



Mike

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll give it a shot:

I'm religious in my own right, though not as much as some out there. I don't necessarily want a separation of church and state so long as I have the ability to move into or out of a government of my choosing. I'm not looking for blanket Church and State integration, I'm looking for the ability to move in and out of the sphere of influence that I want. If you have a city of 300 people and 299 of them want something like a law banning the slaughter of pigs in their jurisdiction, let them have it. The 300th person can make a decision of whether or not that imposes too much on his life.

Why would you want to grant the federal government so much power that it can dictate the amount of influence your local government can have in your life? Why is there this push for a blanket solution to 309million people's lives? Surely it makes more sense to have several smaller governments exacting different levels of control and giving the citizens of the country the ability to move to a place that most closely resmbles their desired level of freedom. I would think the answer to most social issues is let the local community make that call.

I tend to believe that almost any universal application of law in the country is a bad thing unless there is a clear super majority (like 75%+) that want such an application. If 50% of the country wants to live in a place where there are things like religious symbols in their public square or some sort of religious laws then so be it. Why would you condemn that 50% to the tyranny of the other 50%? Why would you subject the 50% who doesn't want church and state integration to the tyranny of the first 50%? Why not allow local comunities to dictate such behavior and at least everyone has the ability to move somewhere that gives them a shot at happniess. Now if someone chooses to stay in a place that doesn't suit them then that is no them.



Mike

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

I don't see how separation of church and state is "dictating a lifestyle", that sounds like a 14 year girl doing a hyperventilating type of dramatic over-reaction.

Separation of church and state literally dictates nothing to private citizens.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'll give it a shot:

I'm religious in my own right, though not as much as some out there. I don't necessarily want a separation of church and state so long as I have the ability to move into or out of a government of my choosing. I'm not looking for blanket Church and State integration, I'm looking for the ability to move in and out of the sphere of influence that I want. If you have a city of 300 people and 299 of them want something like a law banning the slaughter of pigs in their jurisdiction, let them have it. The 300th person can make a decision of whether or not that imposes too much on his life.

Why would you want to grant the federal government so much power that it can dictate the amount of influence your local government can have in your life? Why is there this push for a blanket solution to 309million people's lives? Surely it makes more sense to have several smaller governments exacting different levels of control and giving the citizens of the country the ability to move to a place that most closely resmbles their desired level of freedom. I would think the answer to most social issues is let the local community make that call.

I tend to believe that almost any universal application of law in the country is a bad thing unless there is a clear super majority (like 75%+) that want such an application. If 50% of the country wants to live in a place where there are things like religious symbols in their public square or some sort of religious laws then so be it. Why would you condemn that 50% to the tyranny of the other 50%? Why would you subject the 50% who doesn't want church and state integration to the tyranny of the first 50%? Why not allow local comunities to dictate such behavior and at least everyone has the ability to move somewhere that gives them a shot at happniess. Now if someone chooses to stay in a place that doesn't suit them then that is no them.



Mike

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

And so goes lefty's logic. Nevertheless, it is both possible and necessary to preserve each individual's fundamental rights within the collective without damaging the rule of the majority relative to the general provisions of everyday governance. But don't ask lefty how that's done; he hasn't the first clue. His solution will always be some collectivist monstrosity directed by a central authority.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well I guess I don't think the 300th person should be forced to move, we had that kind of mindset when we had a bunch of racist laws on the books. You gotta look out for the rights of minority groups/opinions.

I just don't understand the mindset you have. You're not "lookign out for the rights of the minority" you are dictating a lifestyle for 309 million people. You are dicatating that 299 people must yeild their moral convictions to one person and further more you are saying that in order to "look out for the minority" that the majority don't even have the option to find a system of local government that suits them. How ridiculous is that? Where do you send the 299 people? What if they go buy the land and found their own city and name it "noporkallowedopolis"? Would you tell them that they can't do that either? That is insane.

Mike

And so goes lefty's logic. Nevertheless, it is both possible and necessary to preserve each individual's fundamental rights within the collective without damaging the rule of the majority relative to the general provisions of everyday governance. But don't ask lefty how that's done; he hasn't the first clue. His solution will always be some collectivist monstrosity directed by a central authority.

Lol it's always cute how kids call anyone who disagrees with them on anything as a "lefty", with obviously zero clue what a lefty is.

But it's sad that you don't take minority rights seriously. Imagine if muslims flooded the country and you were the minority, I'm sure you'd see it a lot differently.