Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Merely repeating your fallacious argument is not arguing. In fact it is another fallacy.It is either/or.
You fail to explain how it's a fallacy.
You can't explain how it is a fallacy because it is not.
You've got nothing.
So you've offered two fallacies: the either/or fallacy and the mere assertion fallacy.
You are the one who is repeating a fallacious argument.
I already made my argument--that if there is no separation of church and state, there must be an established state religion.
Your only response is to call it a fallacy.
I'm asking you to explain why you call it a fallacy, and you CAN NOT.
This is the point where YOU get stuck. Where YOU are proven to be full of shit.
How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
I've explained it several times as to why it is a fallcy. You posit only two possibilities: We have an official religion. Or We have separation of church and state. What if they are other possibilities?Merely repeating your fallacious argument is not arguing. In fact it is another fallacy.
So you've offered two fallacies: the either/or fallacy and the mere assertion fallacy.
You are the one who is repeating a fallacious argument.
I already made my argument--that if there is no separation of church and state, there must be an established state religion.
Your only response is to call it a fallacy.
I'm asking you to explain why you call it a fallacy, and you CAN NOT.
This is the point where YOU get stuck. Where YOU are proven to be full of shit.
Doubling down on stupid is not an argument, btw.
I've explained it several times as to why it is a fallcy. You posit only two possibilities: We have an official religion. Or We have separation of church and state. What if they are other possibilities?You are the one who is repeating a fallacious argument.
I already made my argument--that if there is no separation of church and state, there must be an established state religion.
Your only response is to call it a fallacy.
I'm asking you to explain why you call it a fallacy, and you CAN NOT.
This is the point where YOU get stuck. Where YOU are proven to be full of shit.
Doubling down on stupid is not an argument, btw.
Claiming that it is either/or does not explain how it is a fallacy.
Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?
Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country
Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??
Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.
Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?
Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.
Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".
"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people...
They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.
In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."
Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:
"What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites, it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There has never been an establishment of religion without all these....
At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."
Is Christmas a Federal Holiday?
Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country
Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??
Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.
Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?
Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.
How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
To expand the bold part
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.
Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.
In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.
I've explained it several times as to why it is a fallcy. You posit only two possibilities: We have an official religion. Or We have separation of church and state. What if they are other possibilities?
Doubling down on stupid is not an argument, btw.
Claiming that it is either/or does not explain how it is a fallacy.
Are you simply playing dumb here? What if there are possibilities besides the two you've posited?
How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
To expand the bold part
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.
Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.
In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.
Is MLK day?? Does not mean that we deify MLK as a country
Is Arbor Day a federal holiday? Does that mean we have a state religion of druidism??
Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.
Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?
Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.
What you believe is immaterial, just as what I believe is, according to the 1st Amendment. That is the whole point. I cannot insist you worship God, and you cannot insist I don't.
Strict interpretation should render the Federal government impotent (and silent) with regard to religion.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
To expand the bold part
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.
Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.
In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.
I note that you ignore the "free exercise clause" not surprising. A lot of people do that.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
To expand the bold part
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.
Note the "wall of separation between church and state." Barring the establishment of a religion is considered shorthand for the wall of separation between church and state.
In other words, as I said in my initial post...it's a synonym.
That was a letter to a church in the town I went to school in, not part of the 1st Amendment or SCOTUS precedent .
It is not synonymous.
No one wants you to be forced to believe in God. In return, all we ask is that you not interfere with my desire to worship Him as I see fit.
The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of works both ways. It is every bit as much a wall of separation between State and church as one between church and State.
Claiming that it is either/or does not explain how it is a fallacy.
Are you simply playing dumb here? What if there are possibilities besides the two you've posited?
Well, I'm waiting. What are the other possibilities? If you could come up with any, that could possibly be considered an explanation for why my argument is a fallacy.
A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."
If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.
I'd like to know what they think it is.
Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.
Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.
Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?
Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.
What you believe is immaterial, just as what I believe is, according to the 1st Amendment. That is the whole point. I cannot insist you worship God, and you cannot insist I don't.
Strict interpretation should render the Federal government impotent (and silent) with regard to religion.
So, in your opinion should the birthday of the Messiah be a federal holiday?
How do you prove a negative? Along with prohibiting the establishment of a religion the 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. The bigoted left got around the "making" part of the Constitution by finding a loophole that did not exist. The modern concept of "separation church/state" is an invention by a FDR appointed Supreme Court justice who was also a former KKK member who hated Papists. The bigoted left drags out Jefferson letters that tend to reinforce the separation concept but Jefferson's letters are not part of Constitutional law.
There wasn't Jefferson's "letters" there was Jefferson't letter to the Danbury Baptists who wrote inquiring as to whether their Church would be allowed to exist. Jefferson wrote back assuring them that government would not interfere with worship as there was a separation between church and state.
The letter in question.
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.
Are you simply playing dumb here? What if there are possibilities besides the two you've posited?
Well, I'm waiting. What are the other possibilities? If you could come up with any, that could possibly be considered an explanation for why my argument is a fallacy.
That while the US does not have an official religion, since the vast majority of people here historically have shared a religion, it finds its way into public life naturally.
That while there is no religious test for public office and no sanctioned religion, that does not amount to a separation of church and state.
That religious events and expressions are part and parcel of public life.
There are all kinds of shades here.
Additionally "separation of church and state" is nowhere i nthe founding documents. I believe it was a letter by Jefferson. So the phrase has no standing legally.
Yes. No, MLK has yet to be called the Son of God.
Yes. No. Druids were into planting trees?
Btw, I believe Christmas has been co-opted into the greatest celebration of Capitalism/Materialism in history.
What you believe is immaterial, just as what I believe is, according to the 1st Amendment. That is the whole point. I cannot insist you worship God, and you cannot insist I don't.
Strict interpretation should render the Federal government impotent (and silent) with regard to religion.
So, in your opinion should the birthday of the Messiah be a federal holiday?
Well, I'm waiting. What are the other possibilities? If you could come up with any, that could possibly be considered an explanation for why my argument is a fallacy.
That while the US does not have an official religion, since the vast majority of people here historically have shared a religion, it finds its way into public life naturally.
That while there is no religious test for public office and no sanctioned religion, that does not amount to a separation of church and state.
That religious events and expressions are part and parcel of public life.
There are all kinds of shades here.
Additionally "separation of church and state" is nowhere i nthe founding documents. I believe it was a letter by Jefferson. So the phrase has no standing legally.
That while the US does not have an official religion, since the vast majority of people here historically have shared a religion, it finds its way into public life naturally
So you are saying Christianity (the religion of the vast majority) is the state religion? That's what I wanted to know. You think Christianity is the state religion because the vast majority of people are Christian and make it naturally the state religion.
That while there is no religious test for public office and no sanctioned religion, that does not amount to a separation of church and state.
Yes it does. If there is no religious test that means no one is required to be of a certain religion to hold office, thus amounting to separation of church and state.
That religious events and expressions are part and parcel of public life
How does this make my point a fallacy?
Just give up. You are making yourself look more and more foolish.
