Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Inthemiddle]

Do you acknowledge that your "side" is as equally guilty of the "my way or the highway" bullshit as those you gripe about?

Nonsense. The only "side" I'm on in this is the one that says that religious influence should be kept out of public policy. I have my own spiritual beliefs, and I'm entitled to them. But I would never support any kind of legislative agenda that was intended or designed to promote those concepts of beliefs just because it's what I believe.

For instance, in another thread your "side" is screaming that you have a right to FORCE someone to sell you a certain produce, all the while screaming that no one has a right to FORCE you accept that gay marriage isn't legal.

That's just more nonsense. First of all, I never said nobody has the right to "force" me to accept that gay marriage isn't legal. Obviously, it's not legal in a great many states. That's a simple fact, and it has nothing to do with whether someone "forces" me to accept that fact. I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with that. All I've said is that my own religion supports and affirms the legitimacy of same sex marriage. The reason I've brought it up is merely as an example to illustrate that for all of koshergirl's babbling about how government can't or should not have laws that would affect things about which people have religious feelings, obviously her only interest is people who share her own religious perspective on things.

As for the whole birth control issue, my stance there is entirely consistent with what I've already said. Setting this public policy, or not setting it, should not be decided based on a consideration of people's religious perspectives. It is not an inherently religious matter anymore than gay marriage is an inherently religious matter (actually, in a way, I would say that marriage is closer to being inherently religious than the birth control issue). As such, it's an issue that should be decided based on entirely different grounds. Perhaps you have missed it, though I've said it several times, but I DO NOT SUPPORT THE HEALTH CARE LAW. I have always been opposed to it, and remain opposed to it. But I also reject the notion that there should be exceptions to the law based on nothing more than religious views.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Do you acknowledge that your "side" is as equally guilty of the "my way or the highway" bullshit as those you gripe about?

Nonsense. The only "side" I'm on in this is the one that says that religious influence should be kept out of public policy. I have my own spiritual beliefs, and I'm entitled to them. But I would never support any kind of legislative agenda that was intended or designed to promote those concepts of beliefs just because it's what I believe.

For instance, in another thread your "side" is screaming that you have a right to FORCE someone to sell you a certain produce, all the while screaming that no one has a right to FORCE you accept that gay marriage isn't legal.

That's just more nonsense. First of all, I never said nobody has the right to "force" me to accept that gay marriage isn't legal. Obviously, it's not legal in a great many states. That's a simple fact, and it has nothing to do with whether someone "forces" me to accept that fact. I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with that. All I've said is that my own religion supports and affirms the legitimacy of same sex marriage. The reason I've brought it up is merely as an example to illustrate that for all of koshergirl's babbling about how government can't or should not have laws that would affect things about which people have religious feelings, obviously her only interest is people who share her own religious perspective on things.

As for the whole birth control issue, my stance there is entirely consistent with what I've already said. Setting this public policy, or not setting it, should not be decided based on a consideration of people's religious perspectives. It is not an inherently religious matter anymore than gay marriage is an inherently religious matter (actually, in a way, I would say that marriage is closer to being inherently religious than the birth control issue). As such, it's an issue that should be decided based on entirely different grounds. Perhaps you have missed it, though I've said it several times, but I DO NOT SUPPORT THE HEALTH CARE LAW. I have always been opposed to it, and remain opposed to it. But I also reject the notion that there should be exceptions to the law based on nothing more than religious views.

Then quite frankly you are too stupid to be taken seriously. There is NO such prohibition.

 

[Syphon]

Please don't push your religion on me. Your vehemence is similar to the strength an Seventh Day Adventist was told that you don't worship on a Saturday. I find that ludicrous too, but hey, it's their faith.

God is in the Constitution if you look at it honestly. 'Endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights' ring a bell?

You are unable to separate yourself from your religious beliefs as I am from mine or everyone else in the world.

I believe that's in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document.

Ah yes, memory failure on that front. That said, since 'separation of church and state' are not in the constitution, shall we ignore the basic concept of 'inalienable rights'?

there are many things that are not in the constitution, but the courts have ruled upon them.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Air Force
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

 

[Inthemiddle]

Good, then you can get married by one of your church leaders.

Actually, I am ordained myself, and could officiate my own wedding, if I so chose. In fact, if/when I do get married one day, I intend to officiate my own wedding, along with my bride. But, I'm not gay, if that was what you were implying.

Abortion is murder. It isn't a contraceptive. It's murder. It's birth control in the sense that you control the birth to allow you to deliver a dead baby, and no, I don't support the form of birth control that requires someone to chop up a baby and deliver it.

I was not referring to abortion. But it's still a perfectly acceptable example. You say that abortion is murder because of your religious beliefs. I do not share those beliefs, and my religion does not support the view that personhood begins at conception. You are willing to legislate your own religion upon me and like minded people to myself, you are willing to demand that general laws grant special exceptions to people who share other religious beliefs that YOU hold, but you refuse to tolerate any exception for religious beliefs that differ from your own. How you can possibly think that jives with the first amendment is beyond me.

When it comes to human rights, there is only one way...or the highway.

Yes, and it goes like this, right?

You have a rather screwed up view of human rights. Dictate to people what to do with their own body, demand that they affirm your own religious beliefs.

 

[Syphon]

Good, then you can get married by one of your church leaders.

Actually, I am ordained myself, and could officiate my own wedding, if I so chose. In fact, if/when I do get married one day, I intend to officiate my own wedding, along with my bride. But, I'm not gay, if that was what you were implying.

Abortion is murder. It isn't a contraceptive. It's murder. It's birth control in the sense that you control the birth to allow you to deliver a dead baby, and no, I don't support the form of birth control that requires someone to chop up a baby and deliver it.

I was not referring to abortion. But it's still a perfectly acceptable example. You say that abortion is murder because of your religious beliefs. I do not share those beliefs, and my religion does not support the view that personhood begins at conception. You are willing to legislate your own religion upon me and like minded people to myself, you are willing to demand that general laws grant special exceptions to people who share other religious beliefs that YOU hold, but you refuse to tolerate any exception for religious beliefs that differ from your own. How you can possibly think that jives with the first amendment is beyond me.

When it comes to human rights, there is only one way...or the highway.

Yes, and it goes like this, right?

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

You have a rather screwed up view of human rights. Dictate to people what to do with their own body, demand that they affirm your own religious beliefs.

why are your beliefs superior to anyone else's beliefs?

its ok for you to force the rest of us to live by you beliefs, but you can not respect ours?

thats the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In other words, we have freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion.

That is a sad, pathetic, worn out line. To give it a technical analysis, it's nothing more than a word game, by which one preposition is substituted for another, alleging that the difference in verbage constitutes a difference in linguistic function. This is really nothing more than a play on words that relies on quirks specific to the English language, in an attempt to remove the essence from behind the words. The sheer silliness of this argument is highlighted when we notice the fact that many languages use the same words for a wide range or prepositions where English uses separate words, yet even in English those same words are often used interchangably. For example, the same Dutch word can at times be used the English "in," "on," or "under." And in English, we could just as easily say "place this reservation on standby" as we might say "place this reservation in standby. The same Dutch word can be used for the English "of" or "from." And even in English we can just as easily say "Alexander of Greece" as we might say "Alexander from Greece."

While it's obviously true that there can and do exist contextual circumstances where one word might be more appropriate than another, it's is nothing less than butchery of the language to insinuate that there is a remarkable difference in meaning by using one over the other, especially without further contextual evidence. Since the constitution does not use the verbage "freedom of religion" clearly it's impossible for any distinction between usage to exist without the one making such a claim also pre-establishing such a distinction within their own intentions in using the phrase. That, ultimately, makes such an argument not only fallacy as an inverse equivocation, but question begging as well.

All of that aside, even if we take a mere practical application and view of the matter, we are left with the question of how one can be had without the other. How can a society have freedom OF religion, if its public policies are not from FROM religious motivation? How can anyone tell me that freedom of religion means that my religious beliefs cannot be imprinted upon public policy, while another's beliefs can and even should be so imprinted?

This entire issue boils down to the exclusion of Christianity which liberals look upon as the religion of the oppressor. So the political left has been incrementally chipping away at the rights of Christians.

This is nonsense. I'd challenge you to provide a single example of any other religion having or attempting to exert any meaningful influence on American public policy. Not to say that people of other religions might not try the same. The reason Christian concepts end up being the only ones that have any influence over public policy is because the majority of Americans are either Christians by practice, or are at the very least "Christian by association" as I like to say (meaning that because they have been raised within a predominantly Christian culture, they often naturally identify with Christianity in the absence of any other influence, even if they do not practice the same or even if they reject the same). As I've already said, my position is that ANY religious influence should be left out of public policy, even my own beliefs. It's irrational to assume that just because someone maintains a secular position toward public policy, they are merely bent on pissing of or fighting against Christianity. In fact, there are many Christians, like John Kerry as an example, who are opposed to allowing the precepts of their faith to influence or shape public policy.

They couch their objection to Christians in that they don't want to offend people of other religions or non believers.

This comes across like silly paranoia, mixed with ego-centricsm. It's apparently "offensive" for Christian influence to be excluded from public policy, but not offensive to refuse to allow any other religious persuasion to have influence over public policy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

My arsenal is always full.....

...of bovine feces.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Then quite frankly you are too stupid to be taken seriously. There is NO such prohibition.

Hmmm. So in other words, after moving the goal post several times, you still couldn't stop me from scoring, so now you're just going to walk away saying "football sucks anyway."

 

[Lakhota]

Since you are ignoring THE LAW, why not?

The Declaration IS one of the founding documents.

Yes, the Declaration IS a founding document - but not a governing one. We are governed by the Constitution.

Hi, you have received -453 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
there is no Separation of church and state in my copy of The Constitution

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

The Infidel negged my above post, but I fail to see his logic since it was the Declaration of Independence being discuss. Apparently he has a "special" Constitution...

 

[Inthemiddle]

why are your beliefs superior to anyone else's beliefs?

its ok for you to force the rest of us to live by you beliefs, but you can not respect ours?

thats the definition of hypocrisy.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I said. My position is that ALL religious influence, including my own religious beliefs, should be kept out of public policy.

 

[koshergrl]

That may be your position, but it was not the position of the founding fathers, nor is it the position of the Constitution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That may be your position, but it was not the position of the founding fathers, nor is it the position of the Constitution.

In fact, it is. You're just too much of an ego-centric hack to comprehend it, or care.

 

[Rinata]

Liberals insist on government intrusion when it suits their purposes then bitch about it when it doesn't. Same as the GOP. Let's not get holier than thou. Both sides play this game when it's advantageous for them.

Bull. Liberals support the separation of church and state even though it is only IMPLIED in the bill of rights. We get it.

But conservatives always refer to the first amendment to the constitution as though it clearly states there is to be a separation of church and state. You people need everything spelled out and have no critical thinking skills. But when it suits their purpose, hell no there is nothing in the first amendment about separation church and state. So save it.

Might I suggest that you go read what I wrote in posts #182, #190, #192, and #199? After that might I suggest that you go fuck yourself.

Might I suggest that you learn to handle being cornered like an adult.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

"Separation of church and state" is a goddamn myth..

No where in our constitution is "separation of church in state" even mentioned.

That phrase was taken from Thomas Jefferson letters, via a correspondence.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Syphon]

why are your beliefs superior to anyone else's beliefs?

its ok for you to force the rest of us to live by you beliefs, but you can not respect ours?

thats the definition of hypocrisy.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I said. My position is that ALL religious influence, including my own religious beliefs, should be kept out of public policy.

that was not your position, your position is that abortion is murder. because abortion is "chopping up babies." that not a view shared by 100% of the public.

late term abortion.... maybe. but an abortion in the first 6-8 weeks (or even first 15) is not chopping up a baby.

so again, why are you religious view superior to everyone elses views? i respect your view, but i disagree that everyone should have to support it. i dont push my pro-choice views upon you, i simply ask that you respect my beliefs and dont push your on me. am i not free to choose how to live my life? i dont go around to churchs protesting organized religion as a cult, because you are free to live your life as you choose.

 

[Inthemiddle]

that was not your position, your position is that abortion is murder. because abortion is "chopping up babies." that not a view shared by 100% of the public.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I clearly said that my religious views do NOT support the idea that personhood begins at conception.

 

[BluePhantom]

Might I suggest that you learn to handle being cornered like an adult.

When you actually corner me I will keep that in mind.

 

[The Infidel]

The Declaration IS one of the founding documents.

Yes, the Declaration IS a founding document - but not a governing one. We are governed by the Constitution.

Hi, you have received -453 reputation points from The Infidel.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
there is no Separation of church and state in my copy of The Constitution

Regards,
The Infidel

Note: This is an automated message.

The Infidel negged my above post, but I fail to see his logic since it was the Declaration of Independence being discuss. Apparently he has a "special" Constitution...

Are you whining about neg rep..... ?

You guys are idiots.... you imply things into my U.S. Constitution that are NOT there and I intend to set the records straight.

You big neg rep pussy

Plus... look at thread title. We are talking about Separation of church and state dummy. Pay attention when you spar with me



Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

 

[BluePhantom]

You guys are idiots.... you imply things into my U.S. Constitution that are NOT there and I intend to set the records straight.

Let me reiterate my earlier point, brother.

While the Constitution does not say word for word that there must be a separation of church and state the SCOTUS has interpreted it to mean that religion cannot be the foundation upon which law or government policy is established. The reason why is because those with religious motivations will simply pass laws which agree with the tenants of their particular faith (say Catholicism) and after dong this for a while what you end up with is a Catholic government in everything but name.

In other words it seems to be argued that as long as no one comes out and passes a law saying that we are a Catholic nation then government has not established a state religion....but if the government passes multiple smaller laws that are based on Catholic belief then government has in effect become a Catholic entity. The SCOTUS realizes this and as such they have consistently maintained that if government wants to pass a law it has to be for some reason OTHER than a religious one. So while the First Amendment doesn't say word for word "there will be a separation of church and state" that stance must be assumed and maintained in order to avoid the establishment of a state religion by proxy.

Now we can agree or disagree with the SCOTUS all we want on that interpretation but it's pretty clear that since its inception they have been very consistent in maintaining it.

 

[koshergrl]

why are your beliefs superior to anyone else's beliefs?

its ok for you to force the rest of us to live by you beliefs, but you can not respect ours?

thats the definition of hypocrisy.

You're clearly not paying attention to anything I said. My position is that ALL religious influence, including my own religious beliefs, should be kept out of public policy.

that was not your position, your position is that abortion is murder. because abortion is "chopping up babies." that not a view shared by 100% of the public.

late term abortion.... maybe. but an abortion in the first 6-8 weeks (or even first 15) is not chopping up a baby.

so again, why are you religious view superior to everyone elses views? i respect your view, but i disagree that everyone should have to support it. i dont push my pro-choice views upon you, i simply ask that you respect my beliefs and dont push your on me. am i not free to choose how to live my life? i dont go around to churchs protesting organized religion as a cult, because you are free to live your life as you choose.

100 percent of the public doesn't view sharia as a brutal method of oppression and legalized murder, either.

So? Does that change what it is?

100 percent of the public doesn't think sex with children is depraved. Does that mean that those who think it's okay should get a pass?