Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

[easyt65]

You can't have freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion.

So, again, no one can show me the words 'Separation of Church and State' in the Constitution...got it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is there a law somewhere that forbids non-christians from practicing their religion?

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

Bryan Fischer: Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

lol

"Don't paint with such a broad brush..."

And then you proceed to broad brush Muslims - too funny.

Well then, tell us how the 1st amendment works under Sharia.... this oughtta be good.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

We do a lot of that here. Google faith based initiatives.

Well they dont survive from the collection plate.

You're right. The people who say the churches should take care of the poor so the government doesn't have to just don't understand that the churches aren't doing it.

They are taking the governments money though. Bastards.

I think that money is probably going to what it is designated for, but without government funding, the churches wouldn't even be scratching the surface as far as helping the poor.

How are churches getting government funding?

 

[pinqy]

You can't have freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion.

So, again, no one can show me the words 'Separation of Church and State' in the Constitution...got it.

And you can't show where anyone has claimed the words "Separation of Church and State" are in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I read what you wrote. How on earth does controversy over copying calligraphy have anything to do with whether or not a student was prevented from doing a paper on Jesus...which she was not prevented from doing.

It happens all over.

"Defendants' curriculum, practices, policies, actions, procedures, and customs promote the Islamic faith by requiring students to profess the five pillars of Islam and to write out faith statements of the religion. Defendants require that students write out and confess the Shahada, the Islamic Profession of Faith."

https://www.thomasmore.org/wp-conte...mic-Indoctrination-Complaint-Time-Stamped.pdf

SPIN BOY, SPIN!

Why do you lie?

Why do you have sex with sheep?

Since you can't refute my point, you get stupid, a mark of a loser. Show us exactly where the school was indoctrinating students.

Since you cant refute my point, you get stupid, mark of a loser. Hilarious watching the left support government indoctrination of religion - as long as it's not Judaism or Christianity.

Your argument's conclusion is not supported by your evidence. There is nothing in it that a reasonable person would conclude that a child was being forced to make an Islamic confession of faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't have freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion.

So, again, no one can show me the words 'Separation of Church and State' in the Constitution...got it.

And you can't show where anyone has claimed the words "Separation of Church and State" are in the Constitution.

They have certainly shown and proved that is part of our constitutional and case law. So yes you lose.

 

[konradv]

You can't have freedom "of" religion without freedom "from" religion.

So, again, no one can show me the words 'Separation of Church and State' in the Constitution...got it.

Sorry that logic is so alien to you. If you're not protected "from" religion what do you have to complain about, if your town gets an influx of Muslims and they want to institute shariah law?

 

[g5000]

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

Bryan Fischer: Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

lol

"Don't paint with such a broad brush..."

And then you proceed to broad brush Muslims - too funny.

Well then, tell us how the 1st amendment works under Sharia.... this oughtta be good.

Sharia works about the same as Kim Davis's religion under the First Amendment.

Hey, you're right! This was pretty good!

 

[easyt65]

And you can't show where anyone has claimed the words "Separation of Church and State" are in the Constitution.

90% of the time you can't have this discussion without some Liberal defending the 'Separation of Church and State'. Many come unglued when you point out that does not exist.

The idea of religious freedom and the concept that freedom OF religion in the context it pertains to escapes many Liberals. The 1st Americans came to America primarily to escape religious persecution. They wanted to ensure that this new nation would never have to face the same issue it sought to escape - an oppressive govt that sought to inject itself into religion, to CONTROL it and LIMIT it! That is EXACTLY what today's government is doing / trying to do.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It happens all over.

"Defendants' curriculum, practices, policies, actions, procedures, and customs promote the Islamic faith by requiring students to profess the five pillars of Islam and to write out faith statements of the religion. Defendants require that students write out and confess the Shahada, the Islamic Profession of Faith."

https://www.thomasmore.org/wp-conte...mic-Indoctrination-Complaint-Time-Stamped.pdf

SPIN BOY, SPIN!

Why do you lie?

Why do you have sex with sheep?

Since you can't refute my point, you get stupid, a mark of a loser. Show us exactly where the school was indoctrinating students.

Since you cant refute my point, you get stupid, mark of a loser. Hilarious watching the left support government indoctrination of religion - as long as it's not Judaism or Christianity.

Your argument's conclusion is not supported by your evidence. There is nothing in it that a reasonable person would conclude that a child was being forced to make an Islamic confession of faith.

Of course you think writing the Islamic statement of faith and having to state the pillars of Islamic faith are not indoctrination.
Just don't teach those kids John 3:16!

 

[easyt65]

If you're not protected "from" religion what do you have to complain about, if your town gets an influx of Muslims and they want to institute shariah law?

There is a huge difference between religion and LAW! Muslims can come into my town all day long and practice their faith. What they can not do, what they must not be able to do is impose / inject Sharia law, a set of laws / legal beliefs that are in direct conflict to our laws, our Constitution, etc, YOU can't seem to tell the difference between kneeling down and praying, whether as a Christian or as a Muslim, as part of one's RELIGION versus creating / imposing LAW!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our government is not interjecting itself into religion and is making sure that religion does not interject itself into government.

If you are teaching a section on Christian religion, the teacher should certainly point out John 3:16.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Santa Claus is not a God.

 

[Correll]

Nowhere can this be found in the constitution. Nowhere. It does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Period. Nothing more.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The article @ Myth Busted: ‘Separation of Church and State’ clearly relates how anti-religious organizations have conducted a campaign to frighten pastors from speaking on political ideals from their pulpits, often using outright lies as part of their threats.

It's about time pastors speak up.

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant "argument."

Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.

THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

 

[Correll]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

Austrailia is not bound by the U.S constitution. What they do there has no bearing on what we do here.

If it works, and does not lead to a Theocracy that the libs fear so much, it is certainly relevant to whether or not it is a good idea.

 

[easyt65]

Government closes down for Christmas.

Santa Claus is not a God.

And Christopher Columbus was NOT an American, did not / was NOT the 1st Person to discover America....

 

[The Great Goose]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

Austrailia is not bound by the U.S constitution. What they do there has no bearing on what we do here.

If it works, and does not lead to a Theocracy that the libs fear so much, it is certainly relevant to whether or not it is a good idea.

We are propping up an outdated institution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant "argument."

Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.

THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you know how tiresome it is for you to make that same silly claim about separation of church and state not being in the constitution, and then somebody taking the time to explain it to you yet again? Ask hannity to give you some new material. It's just dumb to rehash this one again.

Instead of your rambling rant, why don't you PROVE to us what you think is the truth?

That was the point of my post. It's been proven to you hundreds of times already, but you are still stuck on that same whining point. At least whine about something new occasionally.

And, as usual, you have not presented a single salient point where "separation of church and state" is anywhere in the constitution.

Typical Leftist/Progressive tactic.

Sorry if you don't get it, but since the Supreme Court decided that a long time ago, it doesn't matter if you get it.

 

[BULLDOG]

For many years after 9/11, every time Muslims tried to build a mosque somewhere, the "Christians" of the town rose up to stop them.

We all remember all the hackery over the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And we have some on the far right claiming Muslims do not have First Amendment protections.

Only in your mind.... I don't recall anyone claiming Muslims do not have first amendment protections. That's just silly.

Bryan Fischer: Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

Well, never heard of this guy and he sounds like a nut.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.. and I will say this, see how many 1st amendment rights would be afforded you under Sharia.

lol

"Don't paint with such a broad brush..."

And then you proceed to broad brush Muslims - too funny.

Well then, tell us how the 1st amendment works under Sharia.... this oughtta be good.

You act as if you think our form of government will somehow magically be changed to Sharia. That's just crazy.