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.
Often it amazes me the number of people that don't know that Ulysses S. Grant, in 1870, made Christmas a Federally recognized National Holiday.
Guess they attended public schools ..
yes
the administration said so at the SC
Often it amazes me the number of people that don't know that Ulysses S. Grant, in 1870, made Christmas a Federally recognized National Holiday.
Guess they attended public schools ..
there are probably some that would argue with you about that
--LOL
Did I make any claims that every group is forbidden? I simply stated the reasons they stopped having prayer at high school football games or the other examples given of supposed religious oppression.
But, unlike you, I managed to make a point without throwing personal insults in.
Is that your attempt not to admit that you are full of shit?
Why admit something that is not true?
Is that your attempt not to admit that you are full of shit?
Why admit something that is not true?
You just lied when you said that you did not say that the federal government forbids people "from using public property (meaning paid for and maintained by all taxpayers)" to pray in a group. If that doesn't make you full of shit, it must mean that you don't have enough shit to qualify as being smart enough not to shit where you eat.
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.
Quit putting words in my mouth. You look like a dunce. And not just because of this post.
What is the state religion of Argentina? Do they have separation of church and state?
What is the state religion of Israel? Do they have separation of church and state?
I note that you ignore the "free exercise clause" not surprising. A lot of people do that.
I'm not ignoring it.
It is not germane to my point.
Precisely! It's not "germane" because it blows your argument out of the water.
Explain how it's a fallacy.
You can not because it is not.
You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.
Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.
China does not have a state religion, nor do they have separation of church and state. I am sure that little detail won't change the idiots opinion because he already knows all the answers, but it is a fun fact nonetheless.
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.
No it isn't. The wall of separation between church and state is the entire fucking clause, not just the part that turns you into an incompetent boob. If the state makes laws that restrict the practice of religion that wall of separation is breached. That is why the courts have repeatedly ruled that the government has no authority to decide what is, and is not, a religion. They have to treat all religions equally, even if it involves sacrificing animals to demons.
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.
You seem confused by just about all the terminology you tried to use there.
How so?
Your basic premise is false, you don't seem to understand what "separation of church and state" means, what the actual words of the First Amendment mean, or what a synonym is.
Something tells me you're going to turn out to be another one of these illogical nutbags who gets some false notion stuck in its head and proceeds to repeat-insist-repeat endlessly while the rest of the world shakes its collective head.
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.
Quit putting words in my mouth. You look like a dunce. And not just because of this post.
What is the state religion of Argentina? Do they have separation of church and state?
What is the state religion of Israel? Do they have separation of church and state?
You are such an idjit, you fell right into my trap and don't even realize how.
My post is not about Argentina or Israel. It's about the U.S.
I don't know much about Argentina. I do know Israel doesn't even have a constitution. Israel allows freedom of religion, but I would have to say there is no separation of church and state in Israel. Some political parties that have lots of influence in Israel clearly represent religious interests and many of the laws in Israel are based on religion. The army is forced to serve kosher food...a pretty obvious example of no separation between church and state.
You qualify this statement with only 2 locations church or home. The fact is that the government has no right to bar your practice of religion anywhere including public spaces.How is anyone stopping them from practicing Christianity? Has anyone been barred from a church, arrested for praying in a church or at home?There are a few problems with this statement. First no one here (at least AFAIK) has called for SCHOOL LED PRAYER that is a straw man. There is a valid argument against having government officials representing the government (as a public teacher is) leading a prayer session. That is not what is being discussed though. Rather it is your ability to express your religion in whatever space that you wish to which you have a right to do.So anyone can claim any action to be part of their religious practices, and it must be accepted regardless of what their own doctrines and holy texts actually say?
Are you sure you want to open THAT door? Many Wiccans believe their rituals should be performed "skyclad" (meaning naked). If your school led prayer should not be stopped, why should their skyclad rituals be stopped?
Second yes, anyone can claim whatever they want as part of their personal religious doctrine. That wall that you are so fond of requires that. Just like religions dont have a right to demand that you practice one of their tenants, you do not get to define what the religious tenants are for that religion. A wall works both ways. Further, for you to demand that their religious tenants say something different is insanely arrogant. You cannot waltz in dictating what a religious text actually says when you dont have faith in it to begin with. I cant fathom how you can claim to understand what the true tenants of a faith are when you are not of that faith.
Lastly we DO want to open that door because it is already open. What you dont seem to understand is that your religion does not give you carte blanche rights over existing laws. Those laws that might make it illegal for you to dance around naked in a school ARE NOT AGAINST RELIGION and therefore perfectly fine. No one is allowed to dance around naked in the school for other reasons completely separate from religious freedoms. You also dont have a right to sacrifice a virgin to your pagan gods either it violates others rights. What you dont have the right to do, however, is demand that students cannot pray in a school setting or hold group prayer at an event because that IS specifically violating religion. It is not a rule or law that is aimed at some public interest, safety or protection of others rights. It is solely there to infringe on others ability freely exercise their religion and it is wrong.
I'm not ignoring it.
It is not germane to my point.
Precisely! It's not "germane" because it blows your argument out of the water.
How does something that is irrelevant to my point blow my argument out of the water?
You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.
Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.
China does not have a state religion, nor do they have separation of church and state. I am sure that little detail won't change the idiots opinion because he already knows all the answers, but it is a fun fact nonetheless.
China does have separation of church and state, you idiot.
There's no official religion that makes decisions for the Chinese government.
What a stupid argument you were trying to make.
You seem confused by just about all the terminology you tried to use there.
How so?
Your basic premise is false, you don't seem to understand what "separation of church and state" means, what the actual words of the First Amendment mean, or what a synonym is.
Something tells me you're going to turn out to be another one of these illogical nutbags who gets some false notion stuck in its head and proceeds to repeat-insist-repeat endlessly while the rest of the world shakes its collective head.
Your basic premise is false, you don't seem to understand what "separation of church and state" means, what the actual words of the First Amendment mean, or what a synonym is.
Something tells me you're going to turn out to be a liberal
Why admit something that is not true?
You just lied when you said that you did not say that the federal government forbids people "from using public property (meaning paid for and maintained by all taxpayers)" to pray in a group. If that doesn't make you full of shit, it must mean that you don't have enough shit to qualify as being smart enough not to shit where you eat.
Not at all. I simply corrected whoever said the federal gov't forbids them from praying. It is the location or venue, not the prayer itself that is the issue.
That there are exceptions to this does not make what I posted a lie. It simply means there are exceptions.
You posit an either/or fallacy. Either the U.S. has separation of church and state Or there is an official religion.
There are many other possibilities.
Geez, debating with these people is like wrestling kittens.
China does not have a state religion, nor do they have separation of church and state. I am sure that little detail won't change the idiots opinion because he already knows all the answers, but it is a fun fact nonetheless.
China does have separation of church and state, you idiot.
There's no official religion that makes decisions for the Chinese government.
What a stupid argument you were trying to make.
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.
No it isn't. The wall of separation between church and state is the entire fucking clause, not just the part that turns you into an incompetent boob. If the state makes laws that restrict the practice of religion that wall of separation is breached. That is why the courts have repeatedly ruled that the government has no authority to decide what is, and is not, a religion. They have to treat all religions equally, even if it involves sacrificing animals to demons.
Nothing you wrote contradicts my point.
Are you arguing with yourself?
You just lied when you said that you did not say that the federal government forbids people "from using public property (meaning paid for and maintained by all taxpayers)" to pray in a group. If that doesn't make you full of shit, it must mean that you don't have enough shit to qualify as being smart enough not to shit where you eat.
Not at all. I simply corrected whoever said the federal gov't forbids them from praying. It is the location or venue, not the prayer itself that is the issue.
That there are exceptions to this does not make what I posted a lie. It simply means there are exceptions.
Yes, you said that they only prohibit it in large groups and on land funded by taxpayers, you were wrong. Try admitting it, you might come across as intelligent. I doubt it, but you will at least be honest.
Separation of Church and State was ordained by a human tyrant in a black robe that bastardized the meaning of the First Amendment and using a letter sent by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...your premise stinks, and living in grey areas (secular) has no bearing on the First Amendment.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.
