Show Only: Captions | Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous DR. KING | OPTIMISM Next »
Agreed then? Separation of Church and State. It is so simple any idiot 200 years from today will understand it. Right?
(Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States
by Howard Chandler Christy)
Picture by: Howard Chandler Christy, Caption by: SammaelRose via Advanced Lol Builder
 | Shaks on AFRICA |
| Shaks on At Least They Won’t Be… |
 | murky 2.0 on Watch Out Terrorists… |
| Shaks on Watch Out Terrorists… |
 | Dontmonkeyk on Ministry of Silly Walks: Aztec… |
 | Dontmonkeyk on Will There Even Be A Next… |
 | dissimilitude on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
| dissimilitude on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | jklinders on Will There Even Be A Next… |
 | mike on Ministry of Silly Walks: Aztec… |
Cheezburger Network Blog
Uh. Oh….
Ruh roh…
Jinkies!
Zoinks!
MEEP!
D’oh!!!
And we would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling kids!
Rooby roo!
Pass the Scooby Snacks, I gots the munchies.
~passes something to Rando~
thats not Scoby Snacks im passing.
*munches*
Uh…what?
To the bomb shelter, Batman!
That’s exactly what I thought…. I really can’t be bothered scrolling down to read the crap I know is going to be there…
*shudders*
The foolish part of me can’t help itself…
Well, you’d THINK.
You’d be wrong, but you’d THINK so..
Okay, am I just missing it or is there in fact, no joke here?
Hold on.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Separation of Church and State.
Separation of Church and State who?
Separation of Church and State… YOUR MOM!!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA.
Better?
Slightly.
Sorry, it was all I could come up with.
It was good Charro. You didn’t have too much to work with here.
I know, let’s have pie.
I want a muffin.
How about cobbler? That’s like a muffin pie. Sorta.
Muffin pie seems to awesome to exist. Cobbler is the bomb.
I just had a vision of muffin pie…and it’s AMAZING. Someone MUST create this!!!
I tried, but I just couldn’t fit all that awesome in my oven
Get a MOAR AWSUM OVIN!
*gags and binds his lolspeaking evil clone and tosses him into the pit of despair*
You Fool! You’ll give away my plans to use lolspeak to take over the interwebs!
My Sears overlords are telling me that a Kenmore Pro oven is designed to make any amount of awesome fit inside. Or human bodies. Whatever you want. *twitch*
You have to cut the awesome into smaller pieces before you try and bake them.
It does. I like to call it “cake”. xD
OOoooh! I have fresh peaches!!!
*Dang, I really do need a snack, now!*
Fresh peaches? Muffin Pie? When did PK turn into a porn site?
*hides the dolls and toys*
What? never Charlie… what are you talking about!
Great, now I’m feeling randy.
Just don’t tell him and he’ll probably keep sleeping.
I snorted at charro’s comment but Charlie put the cherry on the laugh sundae.
Now I’m playing hide the cucumber with Randy.
With RANDY? Holy cow — If he wakes up he’ll really be surprised? “Is that supper or are you just happy to see me?”
I’m always happy to see Randy.
Yes. That seems to be the best thing to do. *starts handing out pie to all who want some*
I brought whipped cream! Oh.. I ate most of it. Sorry.
That’s fine I’m sure I have ice-cream in here somewhere… *rummages around in never-ending bag of sweets*
Got apple pie and cheddar cheese. Because apple piie without cheese is like a kiss without a squeeze.
A state and a church walk into a bar. The bartender says,
“Lemme guess: you want me to make it one for my baby Jesus, and one more for the Rhode Island.”
Thanks, Folks, he’ll be here all week. Try the veal!
But nothing is valid in Rhode Island. Don’t you read the fine print???
Oh, I thought it was in the church that nothing was valid.
Got any cash on you?
Joke? No! Complete lack of knowledge about the Constitution? Yes!
Yes! Thank you. Now I don’t have to say it.
Oh thank goodness! Someone who has actually read the constitution posted a comment…..
Somebody belongs in a punditkitchen lol, methinks.
Amen that. But hey, it’s PunditKitchen. They can only get it right with the low-flying ducks.
Thank you. I was wondering if anybody else was aware that this is, in fact, NOT in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state is not part of the Constitution. Here is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the following: “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.” As far as religion, this means that the U.S. cannot make itself a theocracy demanding that all persons be of one religion (establishment). It also says that Congress cannot make a law that prohibits free exercise of religion. There is nothing about “separation of church and state” in there. “Separation of church and state” comes from a letter. Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists were corresponding over concerns regarding freedom of religion and Jefferson “assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.”
But I want to know if it is actually in fact in the Constitution.
Well, sure it’s in the first amendment!
*circular reasoning makes Rando dizzy*
But can’t we argue in circles for 50 more pages?
Can’twecan’twecan’twe? Can’t we?
“As far as religion, this means that the U.S. cannot make itself a theocracy demanding that all persons be of one religion (establishment).”
That pretty much means keep religion out of the state. If you make laws based on religious edicts, you are effectively forcing all persons to follow that religion.
Although I disagree, that’s the best argument I’ve heard to that point.
I’m thinking that term doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I would say “no law respecting an establishment of religion” means more than just not demanding belief. It means not participating or giving preferential treatment.
For the record, most people, or at least those I know, are not against abortion because of their “religion.” I think this is a common misconception. It sad how frequently I hear this. And aggravating…
as a christian… I am personally against abortion (with exceptions… namely medical risks to the mother…) however, as a christian, I also believe that God gave us free will for a reason, and that we shouldn’t legislate our values onto people who do not share them. but then again, since I’m a guy, I haven’t a need to worry about getting an abortion ever… so….
oh, and as a side not, “Murder” is a philisophical (and religious) argument. so we should allow murder? any social code is, in of itself going to contain at least some religious values and not other. what it says, is precisely what it says: congress shall not (read will not) make a law that respects the establishment of a religion (read cannot endorse a religion, or place itself and therefore its people, subject to the rules of that religion.)
it says nothing about passing laws that are consistent with religious beliefs, so long as those laws to not place a religious institution in authority over us. (and really, if you want to get into splitting hairs, lets look at gun laws, and the 2nd amendment.)
I think that’s the point of this joke; it’s not in the constitution because it’s such an obvious necessity. But of course, not everyone realizes that today. :¬(
Marathon fan?
It would have been funny if it wasn’t ironically inaccurate.
Drive on I75 from Bearss Ave to I4 in Tampa FL and you will see a billboard that says “…This is a Christian Nation” with the quote attributed to a Supreme Court Justice. It is paid for by “NoSeparation.org”
I remember seeing that one when I was on vacation. It was one of those WTF?! moments.
Sad.
And that’s why I love the south and can’t wait to live there.
so simple those words are never stated there!!!
Exactly!
Ditto.
The problem is that The Constitution DOESN’T SAY THAT. Try reading it before you comment on it . . . morons.
Technically, honey. It the caption doesn’t exactly indicate that it was written in the constitution.
Try reading the caption before you comment on the too, My Friend.
toon.
sigh. give me my coffee, or give me death.
*gives coffee* Don’t let’s be hasty..
Odd, why would Washington bring up a concept that didn’t enter jurisprudence until the 1940s? Weird caption.
Yeah, because it’s not like it was in a famous letter or anything.
Except that said famous letter was written about a decade after the event pictured.
and many decades before the afore mentioned jusisprudence and WAY before “Dear Prudence,…”
…won’t you come out to play.
I AM the Eggman!
I am the LOLrus!
Nooooo! The church be stealin mah Cu-Cu-Cachu!
It’s goo goo g’joob. And for that, you DIE!!!
SLAY THE TRANSGRESSOR!
Thomas Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Who’s ignorant?????!
It infers it. The title of the painting is given below “(Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States
by Howard Chandler Christy)”.
It’s not inferred, mostly because the name of the painting is only put up AFTER they posted it.
To the captioner, this was probably a semi-familiar picture of some of the Founding Fathers in a gathering of some sort..
First Amendment Baby…{impersonates Kool-Aid Man} OH YEAH!!!!
*sigh*
Look. I’m pretty much a huge fan of separation of church and state, but don’t be an idiot.
The only thing a government can do is make laws. Stay with me here. If a government can’t make laws in respect to “an establishment of religion”, (are you still with me?) then that said government would have what is referred to as a separation of church and state. Hence, separation of church and state is a term that refers to the first Amendment of the United States (that you have conveniently quoted above).
Technically, what Jane quoted above said is that the government cannot establish a national religion or prohibit anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. HOWEVER…it doesn’t say that the government cannot celebrate the religion of THEIR choice. I’m with Jane. I’m all about separation of church & state, but the first amendment says we can’t have an official religion. It never says where we can or cannot practice it.
I’ve got a bad, bad feeling that Socks the Cat’s LOL is about to be blown out of the water…
Our disagreement seems to be the phrase “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. I take that to mean not only that there shall be no established state religion, but also there shall be no laws established by the US congress that either progress nor digress any particular religion. To me, that is the fundamental essence of what separation of church and state means. I have no problem being humble and modest, especially when i think i’m wrong, but i think i’m right on this one.
That’s not where my disagreement lies at all. Wesley said the constitution does not say separation of church and state. You replied “first amendment baby”. In fact, the first amendment, which I quoted, does not contain the phrase separation of church and state at all. You may be interpreting the wording of the first amendment to mean that, and hey, so do I, but that doesn’t change the fact that the phrase does not appear in the constitution.
oh…i didn’t even realize that’s what we were debating. I agree that the phraze {bold}separation of church and state{unbold that} is not in the constitution. But i disagree that the first amendment doesn’t mean by definition the exact same thing.
If you didn’t understand what we were debating it’s not my fault that your reading comprehension is so low that you didn’t know what was contained in the original comment you responded to. Please tell me where I, or even Wesley, whose comment started this thread, stated that the first amendment didn’t mean separation of church and state. Wesley said the phrase isn’t in the constitution. You responded that it was in the first amendment. It isn’t. You’re still an idiot.
ok I’m an idiot. why are you so mean?
Because her Dad is a raving maniac!
And a REMF.. and we all know REMF’s have an ego problem.
(tongue-in-cheek CF, don’t kill the messenger, ok?)
Let’s see, where’s Australia? I’ve been there before, but those military aircraft don’t have windows… hme, couldn’t see much but water anyway… hmmm where’s my survival knife, hmm, huh? What did you say, Eddie ol Pal…Say what town did you say you’re from?
What’s an REMF?
Rear Echelon — I think you can figure out the rest, cuz I’m shy.
Because of my fear of survival knives… I’m staying the HELL OUT of this one.
Rando, Rear Echelon are those that lead from the rear, the MF should come easily enough. It’s really a term that the enlisted ranks use to describe the officer ranks. I know in CF’s case he isn’t a REMF, I just like poking him a bit.
Charlie, I’m in Melbourne, it’s a big city, just give me advance notice and I’ll be on the lookout for you. I’m sure I can make the welcome more than you expected..
OMG, I just got a visual of two old guys trying to outwit each other on the streets of Melbourne. It’s not a good visual at all.
-Parachutes into Australia-
-Giggles at clash of the old, tired, dust-farting titans-
Melbourne? Dagnabbit, the only city I know my way around is Brisbane, and that was almost 30 years ago… a lot of good XXXX there, but, Eddie, if you have a spare Fosters, all is forgiven.
Jane’s a teacher and has to deal with correcting people on a daily basis. That being as it is, you did throw a point that wasn’t true: “Separation of Church and state” ISN’T in the first amendment. Considering the cast of characters we have here on PK, being called an idiot for making a point that wasn’t being argued is getting off very easy. I think what further pushed her buttons was that you continued to argue something that she wasn’t even putting forth. No one’s debating the MEANING of what’s in the first amendment, but Separation of Church and State wasn’t in it.. period.
Why am I so mean? Lack of sleep, stress, people being willfully ignorant. Look. For the most part I happen to agree with you, but I have to be harder on the people from my own side because if you’re arguing with people who actually disagree with you, blatantly throwing out false information and then backpedaling like you did is going to discredit all of us. Also, your “first amendment baby” comment was pretty snotty. Treat people the way you want to be treated on here. Especially the people you disagree with.
I’ve always loved the phrase “willfully ignorant”.
*rubs Jane’s shoulders*
Easy tiger, save some of that aggression for tonight
I suggest you lock away the cat-o-nine tails then..
*looks at eddie and nods sagely*
Remind to hide the cucumbers while I’m at it.
But the stupid. It burns…
Wesley did not say the PHRASE wasn’t there, he said the constitution didn’t SAY that. That could just as easily mean the idea wasn’t there as the phrase, which is how Wicket read it. Looks to me like Jane is the one with the reading comprehension problem…..
What are you talking about? Mick…SPEAK ENGLISH, Mick!
Jumpin’ Jack Flash reference – yay!
Nah, she saves it for trolls like you who can’t string a comprehensive phrase together. I’m sure your courtroom experience is quite vast, dumbass.
Name calling does not constitute an argument, you witless goon. You are as much of a failure as Jane.
Calm down Jill,
Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
You’re right, they’re wrong. Next topic.
While there is to be no federal religion, there were state churches for many years after the ratification of the constitution. Somewhere we lost site of the idea that what is not granted as a power in the constitution it is reserved for the state. So states could have a church, but the federal government cannot.
Sorry, check the 14th amendment.
Ok, you’re going to have to explain that one. I must be reading it differently.
14th amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights to include States under it’s restrictions on government authority, including the 1st amendment.
But I don’t think it’s speaking directly to the seperation of church and state. What I’m getting out of it is that it guarantees due process and equal protection and the right of citizenship.
in reference to the comment on state churches. before the 14th amendment, the bill of rights didn’t apply to the several states only the national government. Well that and the fact that just because no one challenges something doesn’t mean that it is constitutional, it just means no one cares enought to challenge it in court.
Well, if you delve into it, the 1st amendment clearly states that government cannot choose an official religion. Since the 14th amendment incorporates the 1st into a state’s “rules of conduct”, a state choosing a church would be violating that amendment.
I’m not speaking for Charlie, just offering what I took away from it.
Ok, well both you and Charlie make sense. I never really considered the 14th amendment as covering religion, I always thought of it more of an equal opportunity amendment.
Thanks, Max — right on, and yes Eddie that was it’s intent, to make the states recognize the equal rights of former slaves, but as ruled upon by multiple Supreme Courts it extends the protections guaranteed to all citizens to include the several states in MOST of the Bill of Rights, something that had not been done before that. Now if you want a new hornet’s nest — one of the amendments that it doesn’t incorporate is the 2nd Amendment, because the debate that no court wants to touch is whether that amendment applies to individual rights or state’s rights. UH OH — did I just link God & Guns?
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
is the relevant section, notice it says the states cannot over-ride rights granted in the constitution, so you are reading it backwards.
Yeah, like the First Amendment. You know, one of the rights granted in the Constitution.
I can’t stand it when people with absolutely zero knowledge of the law decide they know what it REALLY means.
If the government can’t establish a national religion, the government can’t have a “religion of their choice” to celibrate. QED
I’m not saying they should have one. I’m pretty freaking sure they shouldn’t. But technically speaking, the first amendment does. not. say. that.
it implies it though
You can’t impose a law by implication. It’s pretty much black and white.
~enjoying the debate~
every law ever made is implied. what else is there? the supreme court is appointed to imply what the constitution means. that is their job. Our government is run by what the constitution implies.
Nope, not imply, interpret based on common law precedent and codified law.
And then look at Congressional intent and history as well.
Not indirectly, at least. A law to double the federal minimum wage on Sundays (or Saturdays) wouldn’t be illegal, I don’t think, even if it was intended to limit employment on the appropriate Sabbath.
actually, it would be ruled unconstitutional if its purpose was to limit employment on the appropriate sabbath. It wouldn’t pass the lemon test (lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971). Please learn something before speaking.
And to me, the second amendment “implies” that the only reason to bear arms is in case you have to form a militia, but I’m pretty sure there are a whole lot of other opinions on it.
Are we entitled to just the arms or can we have the whole bear?
Your cub runneth over . . .
It sure is a Grizzly affair…
swipe up the mess
I hope we don’t end up at polar opposites!
Well I won’t panda to your side.
Well let’s no Koala out with the puns here…
Eh, go take a yogi class – it’ll fix all your boo-boos.
Well, it only says that we’re not infringing on your right to the arms. I can’t promise that the government won’t take the rest of the bear for the common good. Da comerade?
I think the Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this before you go pulling arms off of bears willy nilly.
It says we have the right to bear arms, does it not? We have a constitutional right, dammit! I want my bear arms!
Thank god, cause I just got a whole shipment of Grizzly arms and I’d be PISSED if they got confiscated…
That is exactly what you said, you lying hypocrite.
Butthurt troll is butthurt.
In a literal translation of the first amendment, it doesn’t say “separation of church and state.” This means that according to the first amendment taking literally, the government could put up a Christmas tree as long as they don’t establish Christianity as the national religion. That being said, I. believe. in. separation. of. church. and. state. How many fvcking times do I have to say that?
You’re an extremist seeing things in black and white too much. Come and see my shades of gray for a good time.
Governments don’t have rights, only powers. Individuals have rights. So there cannot possibly be such a thing as a government having a right to do anything.
The government can now choose it’s religion? Isn’t that kinda like, oh I don’t know, establishing it. Maybe on, what would you call that… a National Level?
The 2 clauses involved are not separable. If it chooses to favor one, it makes all others less. If it restricts one, it make all other favored.
I propose a cool new idea… How about the gubment not choose any of them, nor restrict any of what the PEOPLE choose. Lets say it separates itself from the churches. I know, crazt talk, right?
You know, you could have posted a reply to Jane without being an ass about it. For all the time that Jane has been here, I don’t recall a time when she couldn’t grasp a concept.
Thanks Eds!
I think religion has no place in government whatsoever and I don’t appreciate being made to argue against my own beliefs because someone is blithely leaping from illogical conclusion to illogical conclusion. Can I just go back to boycotting Chick-fil-a (despite the fact that I LOVE their awesome chicken) in peace?
Yes, you may continue your boycott.. can you bring me an order while you’re at it?
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! They’re trying to put bibles in public schools Eds! Their chicken is teh debil!
It’s good literature, so as long as it’s in English class, why is that bad? My son had to read some from the Bible as part of his Pre-AP English class (yeah, public school).
We read a few stories in English 10 as part of our “mythology” unit, to go along with Native American, Greek, and other stories. It was taught as a story, not as fact, and there were plenty of other religions and faiths represented, so there were no problems.
I’m afraid you are wrong about one thing: it’s not religion that has no place in government, it’s government that has no place in religion. Religion is where society got all these crazy ideas like “murder is bad” and “hey, don’t steal stuff”. It’s nigh impossible for religion not to influence government, since it is the basis for society’s maral code. But if government end up in religion you end up with the travesty known as the Catholic Church, and nobody wants that.
I wasn’t trying to be an ass. It just comes out that way.
Well stop it.. you certainly have a right to state your opinion, but please don’t talk down to people when they are trying to have a serious discussion. It just lowers other people’s opinions of you.
Not trying to extend this embarrassing thread any longer, but I was never putting anyone down. Just re-read my posts with a grandmother type of emphasis. You will see that i’m not trying to do anything besides explain my point of view. At least i didn’t call anybody names like ‘idiot’.
The sad part is, we all seem to be pretty much in agreement on our opinions of separation of church & state.
I would like to state that there shouldn’t be any prefered church!
But what state are we separating from a church? Wyoming? West Virginia? Arkansas? We need to be specific.
My personal choice would be Alabama, but only because I like making fun of them.
At least they aren’t Mississippi.
I agree, the state should really stay out of the church’s business
Except to worship me!!! Down on your knees, peasant!
Who is President Obey-Me? Is he related Obi-Wan?
Old Ben Kenobi is a strange man, it could possibly be him…
Unless it is the Ewan MacGregor incarnation in which case, okay!
As long as Whinikin doesn’t show up…
*puts a whoopie cushion on George Lucas’ seat*
Dude, I’d take Alec Guinness’ Obi-Wan over Ewan McGregor anyday. Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan is dull and boring.
You forgot to add sexy. Hella sexy. I <3 Ewan McGregor.
As long as “sexy” can be defined as being a very boring stick-in-the-mud Jedi that almost made me feel sorry for that pathetic Anakin bitch.
I feel sorry for Anakin… but only beecause Hayden I-Couldn’t-Act-My-Way-Out-of-My-Father’s-nutsack-to-be-born Christensen portrayed him as whiny emo child. Not a frustrated, talented, brooding individual with a MESSED up childhood. Emo kids complain because they THINK their life is messed up… Anakin’s WAS messed up…
I think they meant a separation of church and sex!
Yeah, Max, if he had been portrayed correctly, he would’ve been the natural lead up to Darth Vader. Now I feel like Vader is just some whiny bitch in a black costume.
And he sings… I <3 Moulin Rouge…
but of course, the church doesn’t need to stay out of the govt’s business right? The church can make the govt. put ten commandments on govt. buildings, but the govt. can’t make the church pay taxes. If the church can get in the govt.’s business, but the govt. can’t do anything to the church, isn’t that a theocracy? I mean…getting in somebody’s business is the definition of power, and you just gave all power to the church and none to the govt.
The term “Seperation of Church and State” was coined by a liberal judge on the bench for the US Supreme court in the 1960′s. The founders in fact used faith and religion as a corner stone for the framework of the constitution and laws we now have. the only time that religion is stated in the constitution as a specific is the first amendment which states that the government may not pass any law establishing a national religion or prohibit the free practice thereof. this idea has been perverted.
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. See there, the first line, means that the U.S. Government should not be favoring one religion over another, and treat all equally (within reason of course). Putting up religious monuments of only one faith is showing favoritism. Before you start ranting about how all the founding fathers were deeply religious, I think you should do some research on that, particularly on Thomas Jefferson.
Yeah, yeah, he was a deist, we know. Showing favoritism is not the same as establishing a national religion. Not by a longshot. This country has always shown favoritism towards Christianity due to the fact that the majority of people here are Christian. However, thanks to the first amendment, that minority still has all the rights as the majority, which is as it should be. But separation of church and state is in itself not in the first amendment.
Did I mention I favor separation of church and state? I want to make that clear.
Exactly! The US government cannot establish a religion. An example of a religion established by a government is the Church of England, which was created when good ol’ King Henry VIII didn’t like it when the pope said he couldn’t dump his wife Catharine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. THAT is what is prohibited by the first amendment, as well as interfering in how people practice their religion. This shouldn’t be interpreted to say that a high school valedictorian can’t mention God or Jesus in his/her speech because it’s a public school function and some people might get offended.
I do think the government should stay out of religion.
I do not think that that should extent to forbidding government employees from decorating their workspaces for Christmas or Easter.
Bon’t forget articl VI, clause 3 of the main body of the Constitution of 1787 — you know the part about no religious test for office… so even if a person running for President might be a muslim (which all sane people know hasn’t happened yet) it would still be OK. But, absolutly NO MUSLINs!!!
PERSIAN SILK ONLY BEETCHES!
and solid wool undergarments, so arousal only feels somewhat good.
Oh god… I’m getting chafed just thinking about those things…
don’t say god — we have a separation thing going on here! Only _____ can say it, over and over and over.
What do you get when you cross a dyslexic with a insomniac with an agnostic?
A person who stays up all night contemplating whether or not there is a “doG”
Yeah, but how does it sound through paper thin walls in a cheap motel?
I protest even more vehemently against polyesthers!
Treaty of Tripoli, baby.
Treaty of Tripoli.
George Washington, himself, says “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”
Suck it Christian revisionist.
The founding fathers were sons of the age of enlightenment. Many felt that mankind was best served through study of the natural sciences and abandonment of religious superstitions.
And those sons of the Enlightenment are no doubt laughing at you right now for idiotically parroting something you heard someone say, but never bothered to check.
Step 1: bother to check the treaty of tripoli (note article 11)
Step 2: remove foot from mouth
Step 3: apologize to soap
Step 4: Read aritcle 6 section 2 of the constitution
Step 5: Realize article 11 of the treaty of tripoli constitutes the supreme law of the land and passed congress unanimously…UNANIMOUSLY
Step 6: re-insert foot and be quiet while the growns up talk
(P.S. sorry if this is double post, first one is being moderated…not sure why…maybe cause I gave a linky for the treaty of tripoli)
You incorrectly assume that I’m attacking soap’s argument rather than his less-than-thoughtful presentation. But I shouldn’t be surprised that you see everything as persecution, should I?
Who exactly are you accusing me of parroting?
Or is this an ad hominem?
For you’re accusing me of having facts wrong when you say “never bothering to check”. That is different than your backtrack statement that you’re attacking my presentation.
I’ve always been attacking your copy-and-paste presentation, not your interpretation. (Which, to be honest, isn’t really “yours”, now, is it?) No backtracking necessary.
Try to keep up, would you?
Copy and paste?
Pretty much, yeah — you’re obviously not here for an actual discussion (see “suck it”), so ad hominems are not only all you’ll likely understand, they’re also all you deserve.
Who you picked it up from is irrelevant, but I’m guessing it was some more vitriolic (aka smarter) person on a nameless forum somewhere, and since it sounded good, into the tool box it went. (By the way, chief, reading two paragraphs on wikipedia doesn’t count as “checking up”, so don’t trot that one out.)
So… Still attacking the delivery, not the content are we?
*sigh*
Yes, as I’ve said three times already, you’re simply throwing around a term you’ve heard someone else use without understanding what it means. Why would I waste my time debating content with you, when you don’t have any?
You really are slow, aren’t you?
You have no idea my credentials, nor I yours.
Yet I don’t make worthless ad hominem attacks against you.
Comment on the content, not the person, if you wish to be effective.
Really? Your comments downthread seem to disagree.
Regardless — how many times do I have to repeat myself? You *have* no content because you *don’t know* what you’re talking about. You’re just repeating something someone else said that sounded cool.
Come up with some actual content, and maybe we’ll discuss it.
Why bother? This is pointless anyway — you’re just going to assume that I disagree with what you say, build one of those straw men you’re so fond of, and go nuts.
“Comment on the content, not the person, if you wish to be effective.”
“Suck it Christian revisionist.”
I guess this tip for effectiveness only applies to individuals other than Soap.
“But I shouldn’t be surprised that you see everything as persecution, should I?”
not really, dhoti, i’ve kinda gotten into it with you, too. sometimes you end up a vent for some of the aggression i bottle up from work. so, my apologies for that
hmm, i misread your post, but my second half still stands
again, you refuse to debate the matter at hand…the treaty of tripoli, and the fact that it clearly states that we are in no sense a christian nation…that it passed unanimously…and article VI section 2 of the constitution makes this treaty supreme law of the land. I think you are accusing him of copying and pasting his argument, but A) I did a google search on his phrasing, and didn’t get a hit with an exact match and B) the treaty of tripoli is common knowledge for most of us…so it isn’t really the type of thing we need to look up.
Read it again. I gave soap plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong by saying something intelligent about the treaty, yet he refused to do so. And I think we all know why that is.
It’s up to him to prove he has a brain before I can be bothered to take him seriously.
yeah…because he is on the opposite of the argument from you, he has to prove he has a brain before you will take him seriously. For anyone with half a brain, typing “read the treaty of tripoli, article 11″, should be enough for a person to see the implications, which you are still refusing to argue…I wonder why. I have given you plenty of opportunities to say something intelligent about the treaty, yet you have refused to do so. Why don’t you prove you have a brain please. I am tired of going through this thread correcting all the completely wrong things you are typing.
But if I’ve refused to argue, then how do you know what side I’m on? Unless you’re making an assumption — taking it on faith, as it were — but no, you’d never stoop to such a level, would you?
At least be honest — you’re just here to slam (oops, I mean “correct”) anyone who you *assume* disagrees with you.
I read the rest of your comments in this thread. Based on them, I made an educated guess that you are one of the crazy religious nutjobs that wasnts creationism taught in schools. You think prostitution should be illegal because it is immoral. You think same-sex marriage should be illegal because it is immoral. Your comments are too idiotic for you to have any other opinion. If you were on my side of any debate, I would switch sides.
Lazy, cowardly, and bigoted. What a catch.
And really, you have *nothing* better to do than to stalk me? Get help.
Would of been a lot better if you hadn’t said ‘suck it Christian revisionist”. That shows a faint odor of the religious persecution the sons of enlightenment were trying to prevent.
Quite faint.
As the attack is against Christian revisionism, not Christianity. Learn to parse English, please.
give me a break, i said faint….
For those who are interested here is a more complete quotation of the passage from the Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Now as one can notice the first sentence does not end where Soap implies it does. If one reads the full sentence it does not imply that America is not a Christian Nation but only that it is not found on the Christian Religion.
Nor, as Soap attempt to imply in the last sentence that the Founding Fathers abandoned “religious superstitions”. Many of the Founding Fathers were Masons (including George Washington and Ben Franklin). To be a Mason one MUST hold a religious belief (including some of those “religious superstitions” like belief in a Creator and Immortality of the Soul), be tolerant of the beliefs of others, and (yes) the promotion of the arts and sciences. So while tolerance and freedom of the arts and sciences were made a priority it does not imply that the Founding Fathers had an “abandonment of religious superstitions”.
True, but, the nation never was a Christian nation. In fact, the basic principles of the country lay in the historic context of two polythestic ancient societies, pagen greece (democracy) and pagen rome (republic). The Christian God and his son Jesus Christ does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of 1787.
I would have to disagree that America was never a Christian Nation. Though it would depend on what defines a Christian Nation, your definition of Christian, and what influences of Christianity there were.
The influences from the Greek Democracy and Roman Republic were purely philisophical and architectual, not religious. There are no religious references to the Greek/Roman Gods or beliefs with the exception of the philisophical influences and architectural uses (ie Americans do not celebrate Greek/Roman holidays but we do use the government structure and various statues). Religious influences are more noticable towards Christianity, though it takes indepth review and how broad your definition of Christianity is. The American justice system has heavy influence from various Christian beliefs (Ten Commandments, redemption, ect), blue laws, and the only national religious holiday is Chistmas. The vast majority of the early Americans were Christians of various creeds, hence although not created on the “Christian Religion”, it was predominantly composed of and influenced by Christians it could be defined as a Christian Nation.
You err in that the Declaration of Independence contains no reference to the Christian God. The Declaration states “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.” You will notice the use of the words Nature’s God (singular) and “Creator”. Only the Biblical God (a monotheistic God) is both Nature’s God and the Creator of man. Hence the reference to Deity in the Declaration is that of the Biblical Christian (and Jewish) God.
Not so, Nature’s God can imply any God or Diety and every religion has a Creator, it’s just that Christian’s see it as their creator since they only recognize one creator, but then again other’s recognize their own creator. It’s not as if the founding fathers didn’t recognize the words God or Jesus Christ. Had they ment the Christian God they would not have said Nature’s God, simply God, but then again you would have to interpret Nature’s God to mean the the Judeo-Christian God, and we know how Christian’s and Conservatives dislike intrepretations.
I have to guess you didnt notice that I stated to notice that Nature’s God and Creator are a reference to the same entity. No other religious belief (except a monotheistic belief) has the Creator of man and Nature’s God as the same. It is true that the Founding Fathers knew the words for God and Jesus Christ, but since they consisted of many Christian and Jewish faiths they also used many different words such as: Yahweh, Y-hw-h, Jehova, J-h-va, God, G-d, Christ, the Father, the Spirit and the Holy Ghost, Ja, and MANY others. All of which are different words for the Judeo-Christian God. Then why use terms as “Nature’s God” and “Creator”? Because Christians (and Jews) would recognize it as reference to their God, but without the use of a specific word used by a specific faith.
Apparently, Thomas Jefferson was a “liberal judge” in the 1960s and not one of the founding fathers…silly me. LOL…conservatives…this guy is on your side. You educate him. Cmon people…we can at least get the RAW FACTS straight right?
The founders in fact used faith and religion as a corner stone for the framework of the constitution and laws we now have.
No, they didn’t. They were deeply suspicious of religious involvement in government in any way, because they had seen how it could be used to suppress freedom, including freedom of religion. Look up the Non-conformist movement in England — people got locked up for failing to pay tithes to the Church of England, as they were required to by law.
You’re just lying, quoting the same tired old right-wing Christian dogma about how the Constitution is based on faith. That has never been true.
What they believed is the truth about faith. One, a religion can’t be forced on anyone, just as Christian doctrine states. Two, being suspicious came from the fact that governments and the church, like those English types, getting together to take advantage of the common people, which the founding fathers opposed. Churches and other religious organizations are run by human beings who are, after all, not perfect, just like you and me. Those who corrupted the doctrine set by Christ are long dead and way past moldering, so that “dogma” is ancient history. I do believe that it was George Washington himself said the fight against those English types was a mission from God, and Thomas Jefferson had originally written “they are endowed by their GOD” rather than “by their CREATOR.”
I wonder why he changed it? Could be he thought better about picking a specific faith’ss version of a Creator? It’s not as if he didn’t know the terminology.
He wanted to say that but knew that agnostics and atheists and the like would cut him down for that.
How do you know that? Perhaps he wanted a “separation” of church and state, there you go “intrepeting” what he thought.
It’s called ‘reading.’ It was in a book about John Adams. Benjamin Franklin had pointed it out that it wouldn’t be right to have that.
“Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction – his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.”
Excellent point. Someone pays attention in class! An additioniona insight might be gained by reading a letter addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1785, in which the author stated, among other things,
“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.”
The author? James Madison, you know, the guy wrote wrote the bulk of the Constitution of 1787, and who was very religious.
Separation of church and state wasn’t invented in the 60s though… It’s one of the principles of Calvinism…
And that means going back to the 30 Years War, well before there even was a USA.
…Before there even was a USA…
Try explaining that concept to some of the trolls round here…
TEHR WUZ ALWEYS A OOOSSAAAA!! DO NOT DENY!! LIES! LIES! SPOUT! LACK OF FACTS! THINGGGGS!
Well clearly since the only thing that actually matters is how fvcking awesome the USA is, anything that existed before the USA wasn’t worth knowing about. Duh.
Phhht! faith and religion weren’t the cornerstone for the framework of the constitution – the declaration of arbroath (scotland 1320) and the magna carta libertatum (england 1215) were the foundation, with the concept of sueing people instead of duels & revenge as developed by the puritians (equal access to lawyers/barristers and the right to sue for darn near any cause as a way to keep churches out of secular matters – very anti inquisition of them….)
Read the first amendment.
Do you think the founding fathers influenced by the enlightenment wanted to a state religion? Of course not. Many of them considered religion pure poison, something better when it is actually more private.
Mr Jefferson, build up that wall!
It was not meant to keep religious displays out of the public arena… it WAS meant to keep Government out of religion.
… which is how the Church of England was formed (Government meddling in Religion).
“Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction – his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.”
Do you understand me now?
Wow, déjà vu all over again!
Wow, deja vu all over again!
Ha! You forgot the umlauts, so it’s not really all over again, is it?
Something often gets lost in translation!
Wow, déjà vu all over again!
And again I say “Wow, déjà vu all over again!”
Actually it’s not umlauts but accents!
Is it? Not over all again really?
*coughs*
Sorry… I was channeling the Sherriff of Rottingham there…
Sorry, I just felt frustrated.. Hence the “Do you understand me now?”
Exactly.
Not to split hairs but that would be the bill of rights he is misquoting, not the actual constitution.
Well split, sir. Well split.
Not to split your split hairs, but….the bill of rights IS in the United States Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a group of amendments to the constitution and they were added a bit later.
time happens.
Soooo, let me get this straight… You’re showing a completely historically inaccurate painting of the signing of the constitution and then quoting a phrase that is nowhere in the constitution and never has been? Is that the joke?
I think so, yeah. Which is actually funnier in a *sigh* kinda way.
I was thinking “d’oh!”
But it looks so historically factual how could it fail? Oh wait…
Side comment, “Separation of Church and State” means what it says; the complete separation of the Church and the State. Not the separation of state from Church or the separation of Church from the State, it’s both. Neither of them are supposed to get involved with the other, period, which might have been the original joke… but it failed.
Separation of Church and State, is a term that refers to the first Amendment of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments are also referred to as our Bill of Rights.
Thanks for playing though =)
But the point remains: Nowhere in EITHER the Bill of Rights or The Constitution does it say anything about a separation of church and state. It merely says that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. All that means is that the government isn’t going to force you worship a certain way….. yet.
OK, did you ever see the Mr. Boffo cartoon with the guys standing around in colonial dress saying things like “Boy, it’s hot.” “We should put something in about not having to wear jackets all the time.” “And short sleeve shirts. Everyone should have the right to bare arms.” OK, that never happened either, but it was 90 degrees and humid in Philadelphia, and can’t you see those poor overdressed men thinking that as they were “sweating out” the details?
ZOMG I BET NO ONE BUT ME HAS SAID THIS BUT IT’S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, IT’S IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!! TOOOO SOOOOON!!!!!!!!!! elebenty1123.14159!!!!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
First sentence in the first amendment. The amendments are PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. That is all.
That doesn’t say “Separation of church and state”. All it says is that government can’t establish a religion nor prevent you from practicing your own.
How many people are going to get that wrong?
A lot…
what else do you think seperation of church and state means? the lawmakers can’t make laws that impede or excel any particular religion.
Exactly. It never says the government can’t get involved in religion, just that it can’t stop you from practicing yours.
your such a conservative…
*brain asplodes*
Oh my… what a mess. *begins to clean up particles of brain matter and skull fragments*
*sigh* I’ll get the mop. AGAIN.
*is dancing with the mop in the hallway Chris Walken style*
Oh… you need this?
No no *sigh* I’ll just use these old socks I found.
There certainly were a lot of them lying around… OH! And check to see if any of them have the name “squiggly” in them.. she’s missing some.
*hold up sock with “Squiggly” sewn into the top, dripping brains* This sock?
That’s the one… we might want to wash it before we give it back…
Erp.. My bads. Poor Squiggly, I’d better bake a pie too. Good thing I have all these extra brains.
Oh one of my socks! Thank goodness you found it the other one was lonely!
Can I see that sock? That’s the part of my brain with my childhood memories. I just need to wring that out real quick…
I already made brain pie with it…
my such a conversative what?
On the contrary; the First specificially prohibits the establishment of a religion, that is the linkage of a specific church with the state, like how the Church of England and Church of Scotland are established churches in the UK.
I’m not now, nor have I ever been, arguing over the meaning of the term “separation of church and state”. What I am arguing is your continued assertion that the phrase appears in the constitution, which IT DOES NOT. Stop making my side look bad with your poor debating skills.
The more fun argument is that the phrase actually appears in the Declaration of Independence. Really. I had someone try to argue that point too. *facepalm*
I’ve never claimed a ‘side’. If you let me know what we are debating I’ll be a lot better at it. Stop being mean to me for no reason…or else the kitty gets it.
By “side” I mean people who believe in separation of church and state, which we both clearly do. As for being mean for no reason, you’ve been pretty snotty yourself to people you don’t know who just happen to have an opinion you disagree with. As for the cat? Well, I’m allergic. You do what you gotta do.
it looks like no one on pk has ever argued the difference between the phrases “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”…
First of all, I can’t believe you missed my sarcasm.
Second of all, in the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.
Third of all, I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MISSED MY SARCASM.
That is all.
i can’t believe you missed mine
I can’t believe you missed my wang!
i cant believe its not butter!
Check your Bill of Rights wiki, it’s in the Constitution. Amendment 1.
Don’t need it… got an app for my iPhone
[small chuckle]
…dude, are you serious?
There probably is actually a Bill of Rights app for the iPhone…
Right next to the “I just want to stare at the flag waving for hours” app. Yikes.
No, it times out at 45 minutes.
I’m hoping you looked that up and didn’t stare for that long to find out…
It goes along well with my Ronald Regan Screen saver, thank you! (psssst, sarcasm)
Apart from what Reagan did with credit card rates, I give him an A+! He worked with Jack Benny Goddammit!
pssst i think everyone heard your secret about the sarcasm thing.
But I REALLY do use the Ronnie screen saver as my night light! Really!
I dunno… I like Ronnie and all, but I think that WOULD give me nightmares having his shining face being the only light in my bedroom…
That’s no screen saver! THAT’S ZOMBIE REAGAN! RUUUUUUUUUUUNNN!!!!!
*snort* +1 internets to you.
yep totally… got that bad boy for just such an occasion
I have one on my G1 too! Plus Google search makes most anything easy to find now.
And to you too. Can you REALLY not see my sarcasm? Really? Are you for real? Jesus.
Jesus? Hey! Stop bringing Jesus into this! Separation of church and website!
It takes Jesus 4.5 seconds to get to Earth…
Sarcasm is a slippery slope online. I’m being sarcastic RIGHT NOW!!
I’m impressed, more than one person on this liberal pukefest knows that the constitution DOESN’T say that but I’m sure if you were to ask 100 10th graders, 90 of them would say it does. Too bad there’s nothing in there about separation of union and state.
And technically it IMPLIES that it’s in the constitution and for sure the idiot who made THINKS it is.
I’m unimpressed that you don’t even know that the Bill of Rights is in the constitution. Also in the bill of rights is your freedom to display your ignorance through speech without fear of prosecution.
Zing.
zap.
Zigzag?
Zed?
Zip a dee doo daaaahhhh!
“Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day!!
Plenty of sunshine headin’ my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay!!”
=)
It’s not written ANYWHERE in the constitution(including the bill of rights) which is exactly what I said you moron.
**finishes scribbling in the constitution, staples a handful of pages**
ok, it’s there now, along with the first three pages of the Hobbit, page 11 of the Talisman, the 14 pages of the Adobe’s Classroom in a Book for Dreamweaver CS4 (cuz it’s important, damnit) and the covers to the last 4 Playboy Magazines (it’s cultural!).
Does that settle it?
here’s the entire 1st amendment, please show me where the phrase “separation of church and state” is.
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.
Ever hear of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND?
I didn’t think so.
You mean aside from “Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”? Oh wait, that would require you to actually read and understand the language of the United States in the 1700s. But, you are obviously an ignorant death cultist who believes (s)he has the right to force religion on others regardless of what others want, what is right, and the fact that your death cult has be completely discredited.
Actually.no, you pathetic liberal moron, I was saying that that PHRASE is NOT in the constitution even though retards that infest places like this often THINK it is because, like you, they get their information from CNN. What part of E S T A B L I S H don’t you get?
If Thomas Jefferson had wanted to SAY separation of church and state, he WOULD HAVE since he’s the one who came up with the phrase to begin with. I highly doubt you were there and since you don’t seem to understand English in 2009, you’re obviously not an expert on it in the 1700s.
If you hate religion so much, probably because you were taking it up the ass from some priest all your life, get some therapy then move to someplace like Iran and see what “forced religion” is really like.
PS: in GOD WE TRUST hahahahahahahaha ewwww the evil GOVERNMENT puts that on the MONEYYYYY they must be a death cult!!!! run and hide
1) We all know the phrase isn’t in the text of the constitution. Nobody was even arguing that before you crazy religious nutjobs started yelling it wasn’t in the constitution. However, many would argue that the CONCEPT “separation of church and state” is in the constitution. You see, the words on paper can have meaning, and this meaning is a CONCEPT. I know..its a level of abstraction you are not comfortable with, but we are just trying to help. Thomas Jefferson did coin the phrase: IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Wtf is so hard about that?
PS: In god we trust on coins is a fairly innocuous example of religion in govt. but it always the innocuous incidents at the top of the slippery slope.
“Shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”
“separation of church and state”
hmmmm this must be one of those death cult code things meant to confuse people, they may look and sound and mean 2 different things but like all liberal puke arguments, that’s irrelevant.
By the way, I’ve never been in church in my life but unlike pathetic angry losers like you, I have no problem with people who do and understand that this country was founded on CHRISTIAN principles and by religious people and have no problem with that considering the alternatives. Can I get one example of the government “forcing” religion on people? Oh wait….they force you to not work on Christmas…..wow, that sucks.
Of course, since you probably don’t work every other day of the year,well…now I get it.
Prop 8, 2008, CA
wow, it’s even in the dictionary…you know, that big book that tells you what words mean:
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one’s child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.
8. Cards. to obtain control of (a suit) so that one can win all the subsequent tricks in it.
I think it’s safe to say that ESTABLISH meant the same thing in 1776 that it does now.
And, in the context in which it’s used in the Constitution, means Establish (7), as you correctly and helpfully embolden.
I can haz English Church?
Take it. Please. We need to separate the church and state in the UK. Maybe G Brown will take an offer.
The cost of shipping will be awful…
No, because churches float in water — you can sail them.
Don’t forget we’ll chuck in the Queen too. She’s the head honcho of the church, for some reason…..
Like witches? Do they weigh the same as a duck?
They turned me into a newt!
Newt-like typing detected.
I knew that! No, really! I just forgot.
We can have a wikipedia tournament if you want to.
NO. NO NO NO.
Huzzah for smart teens! I knew it was a Jefferson quote and that it came from one of his letters but the exact history you provided was superb.
Yeah, I’ve been very impressed with Igor on this thread. There is hope for the future, and it is Igor!
I’m thinking I might need to nominate him for my Vice Overlord of the World, when I take over…. A fire breathing dragon with smarts would be awesome…
If you turned the world into a game, gave our country character statistics, etc, I would have the universe conquered for you by tomorrow night.
Can you cite those numbers for me? I think suggesting that 65% of America’s youth are functionally illiterate is bogus. And if it’s true, then I blame No Child Gets Ahead…er…Left Behind.
Why would he do that? Every post I get a warning, that by the end I’ll be shaking my head and wondering, “Wow. How does anybody get that stupid?”
but…but…I’m sooo damned angry!!!
I didn’t know that wow stood for weird obnoxious weebles.
It doesn’t, it stands for “Warrgarble Or Wharrgarble”..
Which is just excellent, since there is no E on the end.
The proper spelling of made-up, bologny words is SERIOUS BUSINESS.
WHARRGARBL
WHARRGARBL
WHARRGARBL
WHARRGARBL
WHARRGARBL
WHARRGARBL
Anyone notice that guy that appears to be whispering sweet nothings into the guy who looks like Benjamin Franklin’s ear?
I hadn’t. Thanks for pointing that out! Looks like Ben is kinda interested in what he has to say, too.
“Your powered wig smells positively delightful. I could inhale that fine fragrance for fortnights.”
“Stop it! I’m blushing in front of Washington!”
“It’s ok Ben…. Washington likes to watch…”
Don’t forget to bring plenty of lube.
Liberty Lube! For when those damn liberty parties get a bit too wild!
Dirty DIRTY liberals..
sweet sweet oily liberty!
He needed some sweet nothings whispered to him – it’s probably not easy going through life looking like Ben Franklin’s ear.
*snort* Oh thanks Danbala, I swallowed my gum while laughing now I need a new piece
Last history show I watched Franklin took part in a secret society that had orgies in England so maybe it wasn’t that bad being part of Franklin.
There’s a reason he’s on our $100 bill!
Ben Franklin was a PLAYYAAA
“I discovered electricity, you know that, baby? It comes from down here…”
Alright.
a) Nobody is claiming that the words “separation of church and state” are in the Constitution. It’s an interpretation.
b) How can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” POSSIBLY be misinterpreted as anything else?
max all that means is they cant force the citizens to practice a SPECIFIC religion like they do in the midle east.
it also means simply that they cannot deny the citizens the right and opportunity to practice the religion of their chois, or more simply put they cant force atheism on us like China does to its people.
it does not mean that government should not look to religios philosophy and teachings for guidance.
It means the government CANNOT govern according to one’s religious beliefs. Neither for nor against any particular religion.
I think if they wanted to say “the government CANNOT govern according to one’s religious beliefs.” then they would have said just that.
They did. In 18th century speech.
What, you mean ENGLISH?
18th century speech… the last time I mentioned verbiage in that manner was in front of a group of high school kids, one of which promptly responded with “Ew! I hate Shakespeare!”
*facepalm*
I know… I fear for Jane’s sanity, and admire her ca hones for putting up with those types of kids every school day.
They make drugs for that.
To give to the kids or the teachers?
Yes.
AAAAAAAh! Help! They even say facepalm here! What is this place?
The… internet?
Hello, pleased to meet you. My name is charro and I am from the internet.
there is a difference between using religious teachings as guidance, and religious text as law. on the one hand, “don’t be a dick” can sum up many religions, and it’s a good general rule, no one can prove that comes from one religion, on the other you will be making laws like “no selling or eating meat on fridays. women must be covered up at all times. It’s illegal to own things those just cause attachment and suffering.” I can’t stop you from letting a book help you to be a general good person. I can however protest you forcing me to adhere to it through laws based on it.
Thats exactly what the Constitution prevents.
““don’t be a dick” can sum up many religions”
“Thats exactly what the Constitution prevents.”
Selective reading, FTW!
Answer to B):
It’s easy… you see, these are usually the same people making the argument that the Bible is a science textbook.
You know, retards.
OH man, he threw out an insult, and is assuming he is wiser then any theist out there. I should just listen to him instead.
Yeah, because making tons of assumptions about any given group of people is the smart way to go. Well done, anal stain.
Well, I’d argue that anyone that actually thinks the Bible is an uncontested font of knowledge and truthiness likely has some form of mental handicap…
But that’s mostly because I think anyone who would believe only ONE book as a source of truth and absolutely correct information is probably an idiot, too….
I dunno. Maybe he’s got a point? I mean, if you’re taking the Bible at it’s word and telling others to also, you probably didn’t pass the 8th grade in regards to the scientific process…
Well, I agree that literal interpretation of the Bible is a bit bonkers, but it’s pretty mean to call them “retards.” It’s a small step from slaggingham dissing those who take it literally to Dave who thinks all people who believe in something are delusional. It just puts me on the defensive.
If you believe in something that has no evidence for said thing and a huge amount of evidence against said thing, then you are delusional.
If someone came to you, pointed to a lion and said “That is a rabbit”, would you consider that someone sane or delusional?
If someone came to you and said “This book contains the exact way to live and you should follow it and the God it has in it” and it was not a bible/koran/torah, what would your reaction be?
Do you believe in all the OTHER gods? What would be your reaction to someone who worships the gods of Ancient Greece?
You would think they are delusional. You know it. I know it.
What you call delusion, I call my beliefs, and I’m going to ask nicely that you not mock them anymore. I respect your right to believe in nothing. All I ask is that you show me that same respect. I’m asking NICELY, which I rarely do.
I would think they have beliefs, and that that’s great for them. As long as they don’t push ‘em onto me, I don’t care and I’m not going to disrespect them or judge them for it.
Would you have preferred the more accurate “ignorant simpletons?”
Shut up! Rando has been here a long time and has proved his intelligence, and his ability to have a good discussion. You have done neither. You are nothing more then butthurt. Maybe the cute Christian girl wouldn’t date you. Maybe you blame God for a tragedy. I don’t know, and more importantly you’re making it increasingly more difficult for me to care. If you don’t believe in God then fine, but for pete’s sake stop being such a douche.
That depends. Do you prefer “arrogant jackass” or “cynical ass goblin?” I’m sure we can work this out.
I’m with you. Surprised so many people claim otherwise. A simple Google search will tell you, “Separation of Church and State” is a term referring to the first Amendment of the US Constitution.
Because we all know that the Internet is an infallible source of information…
Google doesn’t lie to me. I won’t let it.
Slap it around a little, that’ll teach it.
Jack, Hi, I’m Bitter’s Chef.
*now people can’t tell me I don’t know Jack Squat*
Well… Jack IS squatting…
I know Jack Daniels..
But I like Jose Cuervo better. His parties rock!
only the most bitter beers please…something german..
bitter love! You’re here! Would you like some St. Pauli Girl? I love St. Pauli Girl.
Did you meet cousins Tuff and Bool?
Unfortunately, do to the sheer ambiguity of the terrible, terrible english language, the quote “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is… you guessed it, ambiguous!
I believe the source of the confusion here is this word:
establishment
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
4. (often initial capital letter) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually prec. by the): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5. (often initial capital letter) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually prec. by the): the literary Establishment.
6. a household; place of residence including its furnishings, grounds, etc.
7. a place of business together with its employees, merchandise, equipment, etc.
8. a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9. an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11. the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England. (lolz)
12. Archaic. a fixed or settled income.
As you can see, there are a few definitions under the same word.
But please pay attention to definitions 1, 3, 4 and 10.
By definition 1, the sentence (fragment) “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” would seem to imply that the state cannot aid in the instance of establishing a religion.
Definitions 3,4 and 10 define an establishment not as an instance of creation, but *an* existence *post* creation (love that english, huh?) Under this definition, a state can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” implying that a state can make no law respecting (promoting/bettering/favoring) any standing religion.
Hence the confusion.
Personally, I feel that the founding fathers mean the latter, but what do I know? I just a simple sandwich man.
Oh, and FYI, an amendment of the constitution is, in fact, a part of the constitution.
It’s a picture of the Constitutional Convention. Prohibition and the repeal of prohibition are amendments to the constitution as well but Washington never commented on them.
I am lost on the meaning of your response.
I could care less about the picture, I was making a point about the confusion caused, in my opinion, by the english language. Moreover, I did not state or imply that Washington himself wrote or commented on any of the amendments, nor that it would matter had he done so. An amendment to anything (a constitution, contract, or manuscript) is a stated correction, alteration, or clarification of what was previously written. Regardless of whether or not it written as a subtext on a separate sheet of paper, it has been ratified as part of the original document.
Because we are not in the habit of releasing The American Constitution v2.0, 3.0, etc… these amendments are written on their own pieces of paper as to preserve the original document.
*sigh* COULDN’T. You COULDN’T care less. Stop making English so confusing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
I could care less… because I DO care!
Max! Stop interjecting ambiguity and strangeness into my tirades.
You are right, good sir. I could not care less about the picture. Slip of the tong… er fingers =)
I’m a mermaid.
The question then becomes in what way is a high school senior praying at graduation a “law expecting an establishment of religion.”?
When he’s doing it in his own chair, nothing. And any kid who wants to pray in class can do so.
Or if he goes to a private school, he can lead the student body in prayer, if the administration permits it.
What is prohibited is taking time during a program in a PUBLIC school that is funded by tax dollars of people of all sorts of (and no) faiths that promote the beliefs of one group.
what happens when the state becomes the church?
Or vice versa. Which actually scares me more.
*giggles* Wait, I haven’t heard this one…okay, what happens when the state becomes the church?
*waits for the punchline*
Thats when we start paying our taxes on Sunday to the Church of America.
BWAHAHAA!!!! Uh, wait, I don’t get it.
It’s like getting your chocolate in your peanut butter… or it isn’t I can’t remember which.
Jimmy Carter would’ve made a great evangelist.
Jesus comes!
And the blessings of Christ did rain down upon the deserved?
Dude, it’s gonna rain? Why does he have to make it rain?
Cause he parties like a rock star?
Like it’s 1999!
He can turn water…into FUNK!!!
Play that funky music, Jee-zus.. Play that funky music right!
Have you actually heard anyone praying to Congress for wisdom? (It would be a lost cause anyway.)
“…respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”… how can you expect someone to understand such complicated verbiage if they can’t even understand what it might mean when you say “Congress shall make no law…”
It’s also amazing that similarly “intelligent” people can’t understand the primary clause in the 2nd amendment. “The right of the people… shall not be infringed.”
Seperation of Church and State is actually very difficult to do. To start with, your religion is simply “what you believe.” And the State is run by politics. If you are running on a ticket, in theory, you are running for “what you believe”. So in many ways, people are voting for who has the closest religion. However, although we all have predjudices, we must make certain to not pass any laws stictly on a religious basis. Because religion is like personal space, yours may end where mine begins. With that in mind, we must assume that everyones personal reigion is enough to govern their actions.
What we can do is believe in what we do believe in, and I think for most popular religions around the world, those who live bad lives face judgement after. With that in mind, things like jail should be replaced with rehabilitation to the best of our abilities or unless extreme cases are involed. The death penalty should all but be removed, and many laws on the books should be erased, and many laws that would love to find their way on the books should be stopped.
Remember. Believe as you believe, but do not force beliefs on others, especially through laws. You can bend a social norm, but a law is much tricker, and it may even take away someones freedom if its not fully thought out.
Bah, there is no such “after,” so any punishing you’re going to be doing you’d better do right away. Stop infringing on my beliefs with your hippie religion!
If you do not believe in an after, then the worse possible thing will happen to that criminal when he dies. He will cease to exist.
Cease to exist much like my socks when I put them in the dryer…
I know, right?
Or like every single pen I buy the instant I open the box!!!
Pens can occasionally be found in and under furniture… I have yet to locate a place where socks hide.
In an under furniture, at least at my house.
I’m the one stealing everyone’s pens i think….i have close to one hundred and i can’t remember EVER buying any of them.
Wow–you really ARE a sticky wicket!
—
Sorry. But I couldn’t resist!
*makes puppydog eyes*
WIIIIIIICKKKKEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!! *waves fist*
What does an Ewok need with a pen?
typical ewok bashing. you assume because we are different that we can’t write?
No, we assume you can’t write because you don’t have paper…
And that you’re tiny bears without thumbs… that live in a jungle….
Not quickly enough.
Also, “not existing” is FAR from the “worst possible thing” I can imagine.
The worst possible thing I can imagine is reading more of your posts. Why, God, do you torture us with this tool???
lol…The caption is not a quote from the constitution. It is not intended to be. You, see, the little box indicates spoken words…not an exact quote from the constitution. And, It is quite possible that the phrase “separation of church and state” was used during their discussions as it was used in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to a baptist group (I forget their name) to explain the meaning of the first amendment to them. Its funny how serious you people take the caption. It was clearly meant as a joke about frustratingly ambiguous a plain text reading of the first amendment is. Additionally, Naqamel’s suggestion that you can keep government out of religion without keeping religion out of government is ridiculous. If religion is allowed to put religious iconography in government owned institutions, then the government can start dictating what those icons are, or what political party the church should give money to get the icons put where they want them…huh…kinda like what happens today with the church and the republican party. Next thing you know, the church will want to put leviticus on display somewhere, but the whole “homosexuality is an abomination” and “rape victims must be stoned if it happened in a city” is politically inconvenient, so an “edited” version is put up instead. Eventually, this version becomes the only one most people know of and the original is put on a dusty shelf somewhere in the vatican…just like the apocrypha(sp? a perfect example of govt. dictating religion while religion thinks it is dictating govt.). I hope you can see by this and numerous other examples that you can think of yourself what a bad idea it is to mix govt. and religion at all. Religion meddling with govt. or govt. meddling with religion is a two-way street. You can’t have one without the other. This is why the “wall of separation” between church and state has been so critical to our success as a nation. The more religion becomes involved in politics and less involved with its worshippers, the more people will abandon religion as just another tool of corrupt politicians. To survive in a modern age, religion must steer clear of the divisive world of politics and not appear to be struggling for power right along with the power-hungry politicians.
Good post! I think you are onto something with your statement, “The more religion becomes involved in politics….” hits on the heart of the matter with people who find church irrelevant and corrupt. That’s too bad because that has rarely been my experience with church.
I think you make a number of good points here. I especially liked the part of religion becoming more involved in politics. History shows that as religion and politics become intertwined, religion becomes more and more corrupt. Religion should never be about power. The government should never be about religion. Despite the misinterpretation of the first amendment in this discussion, I’m all in favor of separation of church & state.
Agreed. Just because the founders were Christians doesn’t mean that they wanted a country where the government was a religious institution. In the words of Thomas Jefferson (though mostly Johnathan Locke), “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,” and this is more true than ever. They clearly expressed that people were born with unalienable human rights, regardless of government. The government’s job is merely to keep those rights from being denied to their citizens, not because that government has the divine power to do so, but because people bring that government into existence on their own, logical terms.
In FAVOR of church & state?
Is this something we need to vote on?
I thought we already had these rights.
Well, obviously. I’m just saying I support it that’s all. No need to get snarky about my wording.
Rando, you’re such a Conservative.
*head asplodes*
DAMNIT! And I just used up the socks. *heads to Sock’s LOL* I think there was one there I can use…
Probably a couple giant ones actually.
I think political discussion defeats the purpose of LOLZ…
If its makes anyone feel better, most of you are wrong, on both sides. The language of the bill just is intended to prevent the state from saying “Ok ladies and Gentlemen, we are officially now Jedi’s… all Christians, Jews, Siths and Muslims will be killed.”
Its America… government doesn’t work, church doesn’t work… and if you want to do anything about it be prepared to wait on hold for an hour or until the next Indian becomes available.
Siths? Darn Jedi! Always trying to keep the Dark Side down! Don’t be a Vader hater!
Oh my, the Jedi are really going to feel this one.
As if a thousand voices cried out all at once, and were suddenly silenced, yeah they’re gonna feel it for sure.
If a man goes into the forest, speaks his thoughts outloud and no woman is around to hear, is he still wrong?
Yeah, but everytime they elect a Sith president, they go and kill all the Jedi and they gotta start over again. Stop the Jedi genocide!
“most of you are wrong”
Have you ever even remotely considered that YOU may be wrong? I mean, you’re not in the minds of the founding fathers three hundred years ago.
why are you yelling at ME?
Your name isn’t Fat Back…
Because I don’t have the time in school to write in script?
thats true… but as a published constitutional scholar who as read even some of the more obscure diary entries from many of the Founders I feel pretty justified in my observations… however I readily concede that it is impossible for my to fully understand their intent without directly interviewing them, which is of course, impossible. I am happy to argue interpretation all day, I would even be willing to go as far as to show the judicial history and precedence that led to that term “separation of church and state,” however, when I say that “most of you are wrong” I mean it in the sense that you are inferring something that cannot be justifiably based on the text alone… which most of you do… you are familiar with the term “separation of church and state” but few can actually tell you where that comes from.
Thomas Jefferson’s Danbury Letter, 1802.
And I’m a teenager. I had to Google for the date, but I knew the rest before I saw this caption.
As stated here, “separation of church and state” exists nowhere in the constitution (and yes, obviously the bill of rights is part of that).
Do not foolishly try to defend this “joke” by claiming that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” means the same thing.
The so called “separation” today is a liberal concept intended to keep any and all notion that religion still exists or is acceptable out of all public arenas including but not limited to government institutions.
On the other hand, the text in the first amendment was (IS!!) intended to keep religious persecution out of the American government with the knowledge that a state religion perverts both the state and the religion.
The founding fathers would balk at the very idea of many of you people attempting to use their words to promote teaching and enforcing atheism (which, mind you, is by many definitions a religion).
We’re teaching and enforcing atheism?
Ooooooookkkkk then
Got to agree with the “enforcing” part. People complain about the “bible belt” but even here teachers have lost their jobs just for admitting they have a faith. NOT teaching the bible, just saying they believe it too much.
citation please
Teachers must never mention religion to younger students because they are too impressionable, they take anything an authority figure says as a fact. Teachers have a right to have a religion like anyone else, but they must NEVER express any views stemming from their beliefs around their students.
but by never expressing any beliefs they are expressing the beliefs of atheism. Sorry No1 but religion is not neutral
actually, an atheist would express his belief that there IS NO GOD. Not expressing your beliefs IS NEUTRAL. Its like, anything that doesn’t actively reinforce your religious ideology must be trying to tear it down right? The reason for this, of course, is that without constant indoctrination and brainwashing, children don’t “grow up in the faith” and most don’t become religious zealots when they grow up like their parents are. This bothers them, and so they say the schools teach them atheism…when really, the schools are just trying very hard not to brainwash people’s children. In other words, if you want to brainwash your kids into your religion, do it on your own dime…not on my tax dollars. Thats what private schools are for, and that is why we DONT give vouchers for private schools, because tax payers shouldn’t be paying for people to brainwash their kids into their religion.
I bet if a teacher told a bunch of kids their parents were stupid for going to church you suddenly wouldn’t care how impressionable they are because suddenly it lines up with what you think.
Not at all the case. People can believe what they want, i really don’t care. Just don’t preach it to others as truth. I’m more concerned you would go into a classroom and tell everyone in it they’re dumb for what they believe.
What definitions exactly? give me one where atheism is a religion.
“I cannot believe that other people do not believe in something based on faith alone, therefore it must be exactly like a religion.”
I always get slightly weirded out when people are unable to imagine how something can be the opposite. They can’t believe not believing in something…therefore atheism is like a religion.
I can’t fathom how one can believe, therefore religions don’t exist. Ta-daa!
Except atheism doesn’t teach people to judge/kill people for having different views, or hate people for being homosexuals, or tell children who don’t know better that they are always being watched and if they do anything “bad” they will suffer for all of eternity, or devalue women, or instruct people to ignore all logic and believe what they have “faith” in and ignore proven scientific theories, other than that, yeah, Atheism is totally like a religion.
P.S. Also, if an atheist is a “good” person it’s because they respect other people, not because they are afraid of being punished by a magic invisible being in the clouds if they misbehave.
…Have you BEEN to a modern church?
He’s speaking of religion as a whole.. notice how he never said “Christianity” once.
I still think he’s a total ass.
Not defending his points… just his wordage. Quit being such a conservative! GAH!
*head asplodes*
(Where do I keep getting new heads? Am I like Kenny?)
I AM a total ass. I’m not denying it, but I’m gonna state my views. And I have seen what these “modern” churches preach firsthand.
How many different establishments for varios flavours of various modern religions have you been to?
define “good”
define “define.”
Good. Now good define. TACO!
And yet, no atheist can disprove the existence of God. Without proof (or disproving the opposite) it is a belief. Perhaps a reasoned belief in the believers mind, but it is not based on empirical, verifiable facts. – Hence a belief system, albeit a non-religious one.
But. Not believing in any particular thing is not a belief in itself. Those who make a claim of the existence of something, especially when it’s quite … umm… unbelievable(?), have the burden of proof.
But, and I would argue this, not believing in any particular thing, like the non-existence of god, would be more of an agnostic position, than an atheistic position.
If you DON’T have a belief, particularly, about the existence of god (leaving aside an afterlife, or any other religious belief, just a deity – a greater power) than, sure, you don’t have a belief system.
If you actively believe there is no god (because you cannot prove there is no god) you have a belief system.
I didn’t say a religion, because a religion implies a set of rules, regulations, practices, etc., which, in my experience, most atheists do not have.
But a belief system, sure. Because you accept as truth something that cannot be proven or disproven.
(And to be clear, I’m using the general “you” here.)
Well your argument could hold up, if it weren’t for the fact that atheists deal with proof proven facts. There is no God, because there’s no proof. Until then, (to the atheists) the FACTS are, there is no god. It’s not a belief, it’s a lack of proof.
So, if I understand your point properly, to an atheist there are no possibilities?
Because that’s how I read “deal with proof proven facts.” That it’s only things that have been empirically proven that they accept as part of their concept of reality, not the possibility of something that may be being researched right now, just lacks empirical proof.
Am I understanding you correctly?
As far as the existence of God goes, yes, there isn’t a possibility because there is no proof. Non-theist agnostics believe in the possibility, but are awaiting proof.
Not necessarily. I’d say we’re parsing definitions here, but here’s what I understand (from the variety of people I’ve known and their self-identifiers):
Atheist (technical form): Believes there is no god.
Atheist (general form): Does not believe there is a god. Does not define this lack of belief as a belief, but trends more strongly toward being confident that the lack of current proof will prove out in the end.
Agnostic (technical form): Believes that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable.
Agnostic (one of many – Theistic agnostic): Believes there is a god, but proving existence of said god is impossible.
Agnostic (atheistic agnostic): believes there is no god – but proving it is impossible.
And now: Agnostic pending proof: believes there may be a god, but won’t throw in to full belief without proof.
What would your brand of atheist believe regarding what the rings of Saturn are composed of? (Because there is not yet any empirical proof on the topic…..)
I think what we run into here is a problem with the fact there are very few synonyms for the word: “belief”. Which brings us into a semantics debate. In my view you can believe something that’s based off facts that’s not in a belief system. Mainly because to me something that’s based off facts, isn’t a belief, it’s knowledge. In that regard Atheists don’t “believe” there isn’t a god. They know there’s not because there’s no proof that he/she exists. I think our roadblock ends up being just a matter of opinion. Being an theistic agnostic, I can’t speak for most atheists, but I do think there needs to be different words for “belief” because it’s too broad a word that’s too well used in our language…
I guess where my point of contention is, is here: They know there is no god because there is no proof for one.
To my mind, if you only know things that have been proven empirically, you’ll also be careful in how you use words like “know” and “fact.”
And if you are looking at empirical facts, there is no disproof for the existence of god(s), therefore it cannot be known that there is no god. Therefore it isn’t a fact, it is a belief.
Where I’m not following your argument has less to do with the meaning of “Believe” and more to do with your assertion that because atheists only deal in empirical facts, they know God doesn’t exist. That would be like saying that because atheists only deal in empirical facts, they know extraterrestrial life doesn’t exist, because it hasn’t been proven to exist. It doesn’t follow logically. To a scientist dealing with only empirical facts, they wouldn’t dismiss any unexplored, unproven possibility as “known” not to exist. Or “factually” not to exist. They would only say there was “a preponderance of evidence” for or against a certain item.
Is this making any sense as to why I’m confused by your points?
I’m probably not explaining myself very well, I attribute that to the fact that I’m at work, and everytime I try to respond I get a phone call from someone with a problem and it diverts my thinking skills… it’s why I shy away from serious in depth conversations on here and stick with the stupid, silly comments instead…
Basically what I’m saying is pertaining to the existence of God, or God as science.. that in itself sounds like an oxymoron. But when you’re talking about a theistic topic in the scientific world you run into muddy water, because the two are very hard to compare. But in essence, an atheist “knows for a fact” that there is no god, because there is no proof. If they were open to possibility of there being a god despite there being no proof, they wouldn’t be atheist by definition, they’d be a theistic agnostic. Ex: “Does not define this lack of belief as a belief, but trends more strongly toward being confident that the lack of current proof will prove out in the end.” That in itself would suggest that atheists don’t like calling what their views are as a belief, mostly because I think you’d run into the debate you and I are having, which could go on forever. My point was that by definition, atheists don’t view the whole “no god” thing as a belief, but as a fact.
If you incorporate scientific law into this conversation, since we can not produce or reproduce any type of evidence that god exists, atheists would accept “no god exists” as fact from scientific law. Although, I’m not sure how experiments as to whether or not god exists would be conducted… I find the whole thing a little too gray an area to ever really be universally understood, which I like it that way. It makes for GREAT conversation.. such as what we’re having.
@Libby (sorry for the delay, I’ve had a few days break from the net)
The thing is there is a HUGE difference between “no disproof of gods” and “no proof of gods”. The idea that there is a god is the idea that to date has no substantial proof whatsoever, therefore can be regarded as sensational, therefore has the burden of proof. Can you prove that I don’t have sock-eating gnomes in my wardrobe? If you can’t disprove it, and say (sanely) “you don’t have gnomes in your wardrobe” – is that a part of a belief system? Is it up to you to prove that I don’t, or else accept the possibility that there are in fact little creatures in my sock drawer, who may or may not speak some form of Irish, and steal socks now and then to break up my sock pairs? Is it a leap of faith to NOT believe in them?
And in answer to your last question, my brand of atheist wouldn’t believe anything regarding saturn’s rings, they could speculate, but that’s about it.
Me, I just believe it’s an interesting question that we some day, given the right technology and funding, will be able to find out.
… and, which is more related to the question of what beliefs are – I can say that they are not made of the remains of my grandparents. Them not being made of the remains of my grandparents is not a belief.
You’re an “atheist” to practically all Gods. What you call atheist just go one more than you.
Now see, I didn’t put my personal beliefs about deity into this conversation at all. And when addressing a “you” unless specifically told by the other person what their beliefs were, used the general “you” not the specific.
Why do you assume I’m monotheistic?
And what bearing would that have on the debate on if atheism is based off empirical facts or belief in an unprovable?
I’m actually replying to your post several down…. My computer at work displayed the posts properly (I stayed after work to have the beginning of this convo)
But now, inexplicably, my computer at home is cutting things off half-way I can’t even reply to your post down below.
I’d say that if you’re going to go with the concept of them “knowing for a fact” based on their own views of the subject, then we get into the much more interesting conversation of what is real, what isn’t, how do you know??
Which is a separate conversation than if atheists have a “belief.”
Generally, I have found, that if an atheist is firm in their belief their is no god, they will not want to admit it is a belief, at first, but will agree that there is just as much “proof” that there is one as there is that there is not one….i.e. none whatsoever.
Well reality is merely the perception of the individual… Neiche (sp?) has some very fun points about that which will either make you think, or your head explode. I lean towards the latter most of the time because I like to keep things simple.
I think you’d get a lot more insight from someone who is an actual atheist, and I’m just speaking from what inferred from having spoken and known many myself.
I love “proof” that God exists, I’d like to see much more undeniable proof, because as much as faith is important, I hate having to rely on it alone, because as a mortal who’s seen my share abhorrent behavior, I find my faith faltering.
But I’m hopeful… very hopeful.
Maybe I’m just a simpleton, but deep down it just seems highly unlikely that a bunch of random atoms can reproduce, have life, feel emotion, etc., without some guiding force. The universe as it is seems entirely too random actually BE random, if that makes any sense, which it doesn’t. Plus, and this is a more selfish reason for believing, if there isn’t a God or an afterlife, then I don’t get to see my daughter ever again. And I don’t think I could cope with that.
What I’m trying to say is, we can’t prove that God exists and never will. But all who have faith have our reasons for believing in something we don’t have the slightest evidence exists.
ZOMG HE’S FOURCING HIZ RELIJUN ON US!!!1!!1!!1!!
Max, Thanks for the fun convo. I was in a total parse everything apart mood yesterday.
I hope you have a great day!
It’s not just a lack of proof. There’s a lack of anything. I believed in the existence of the mu meson long before there was proof of its existence (although, granted, I was willing to abandon that belief if indeed we reached the required energy levels and no meson was found). There is no suggestion, supposition, hypothesis.
I’m an atheist. I cannot disprove the existence of a God nor can a theist prove its existence, I choose to follow logic and don’t believe in the existence a God due to the lack of evidence, but I still act in a way many consider “good” because it’s my duty as a contributing member of a somewhat civil society. However, theists typically (in my experiences and observations) choose to believe in a God and act “morally” out of fear of the potential punishment from this invisible entity, not because of any consideration for others. From all that I’ve seen i feel i can say theists are generally cowards, hiding behind a sense of “moral superiority” and overwhelming numbers; but when these comforts fail they can easily become deceptive: lying to push a view, scaring people into inaction, and feigning persecution seem to be the most common aggressive behaviours. Religion, at large, is an institution of fear that crushes individual thought, whereas atheists live their lives based on the facts of the world around them; although sometimes they can be real bastards.
But how do you feel about Mexicans?
They make great tacos.
They make GREAT tacos.
Fukc, I didn’t really mean to say exactly what you said, but I was thinking about those damn tacos again. I’m SO going to Mexico when I move back to AZ. Mmmmmm…
ROTFLMAO well, you did put “GREAT” in all caps, so that shows some extra enthusiasm.
Yay tacos!
YAY tacos!
Yay TACOS!
*sings in little mexican voice*
Beef in your taco!!
Stop eating the Mexicans!
But they make great tacos!
Sorry, I behave morally because it’s the Love of God, love of people, and the desire to be an example to others. And at the same time, it’s knowing that I have faults and failures, along with every other human being on the face of this planet. One of the key doctrines of Christ was forgiving others, as you have been forgiven.
and if there was no God? would you stop being a good person?
Don’t worry, God doesn’t believe in you, therefore you don’t exist. Problem solved.
Satan believes in me though… so does that mean that I exist in a perverted manner of the way I would exist had god created me?
Pretty much, yeah.
Well then Satan has a SEXAY sense of humor!
*admires his ass in the mirror*
I’m, confused.
The Maxwell ass has that effect on people..
~standing in awe of the Maxwell ass~
way to avoid the question with spurious irrelevant statements. GOOD JOB!
Catching sarcasm fail.
Don’t make me grab another rock.
You prove my point to a “T”. Without you’re religion you have no way of justifying your actions. You say you behave “morally”, implying I’m not for my views even though i said i was a “good” person. You say everyone has flaws to seem understanding, but they way you use this fact makes it a condescending attack on my character. And of course, you take the “moral high-ground” by “forgiving” me, how revoltingly typical.
P.S. For the record my views all stem form logic and observations; therefore i do not believe in the following: good, bad, morality. Morals are a cruel joke of a tool used to manipulate the stupid and fearful.
Leaving aside the rest of it, because it’s not my argument, I do want to ask where you got
“And of course, you take the “moral high-ground” by “forgiving” me, how revoltingly typical.”
from, as what I saw in the above post was
“One of the key doctrines of Christ was forgiving others, as you have been forgiven.”
as in the general “you” as opposed to the specific “you.”
But perhaps I mis-read the statement.
I may have misread… I’m not sure why he included that quote. Even so including it implies I’m not an understanding person and is an unjustified attack on my character. That said, I am a rather paranoid person and tend to see hostility where none exists…
I’m still a bit confused, because I didn’t read the post from justacarolinian as in any way being about you, but rather about why they are the way they are.
But as previously stated I may have been off the mark in my interpretation.
It was a reply to my earlier comment, I assume it was intended for me…
While a reply, it was one you took the way it benefited your assault on religion. It WAS simply explaining that you were overly applying your logic on people of faith, and were quite wrong about my personal motivations.
You’re= You are….. Your= possessive.
Don’t get on your moral high horse that you have never done something in need of forgiveness. Odds are that you have. How revoltingly typical that you think you are better than others doing their best for themselves and those around them.
If you don’t believe in good, bad, morality, then please explain people like Lenin and Pol Pot, ect…….
Dude, I know, I’m sick of this asshole getting the your/you’re thing wrong every single time!!! If he was a moral atheist he wouldn’t do this to us!!!!!
I am getting lost in the reply formatting is this directed to me?
forgiveness from whom? from my wife? yes definitely from people around me? yeah…but other than that, no I haven’t done anything that needs forgiveness from anyone other than the people around me, and most of those are accidents. Forgiveness is nice, but it isn’t Christian. It was around long before Christianity and will be long after Christianity is a dead religion. Forgiveness is a human social construct. There is, of course, good and evil. Good and Evil are exactly how WE defined them to be though. They are not immutable concepts. Raping a woman was not considered evil in the Bible(nor in the days of the Bible) unless you refused to marry her afterwards. Stoning people to death and raping and pillaging was not evil in the Bible. It was the standard thing you did after you defeated your enemies. It was acceptable practice in warfare. Our concepts of Good and Evil have evolved in the last 2000 years. Slavery is now Evil…wasn’t Evil in the Bible. And since you would claim your religion is perfect and immutable, it must be our society that changed those definitions…not religion. Now, please answer the question, if someone could prove to you that God didn’t exist, would you still possess an ounce of morality? Would you become a criminal waiting for an opportunity? or do you have some shred of decency within yourself that would allow you to be a good person without the “love of God”/fear of Hell guiding you? If your religion is the only thing keeping you a decent human being, then I am sorry you have no internal moral compass. Your parents should have taught you better. Religion is an external moral compass. It provides morality to those that have none of their own. But those bereft of religious indoctrination develop their own sense of right and wrong. It rarely coincides with that of any particular religion, but it no less correct than the moral compasses of those religions. It is a moral compass based on experience and simple logic. If someone else does something that you don’t like, you realize, by logic, that others may not like it if you do that to them. So to avoid upsetting other people and live in peace with your fellow human beings, you avoid doing things that piss people off. One doesn’t need religion for morality, just a brain that operates properly.
A physicist, an expert historian, theologian, AND philosopher.
How could we not all love you?
I’m hoping he’ll add “mall ninja” to that illustrious list after he gets REALLY upset.
*hears mall ninja*
I’ve been spotted! Ninja VANISH!
*throws a smoke bomb and disappears*
Ninja, ninja, rap! Ninja, ninja, rap! Go ninja go ninja go ninja go! Go go go go go go go!
You know, I could’ve gone my whole life without fvcking Vanilla Ice stuck in my head again. Thanks, charro.
Just for that I present from memory (which means accuracy won’t be good):
All right stop, collaborate and listen
Ice is back with an all new invention
Something grabs ahold of me tightly
Then I fly like a harpoon daily and nightly.
Will it ever stop, yo, I don’t know.
Turn out the lights and I’ll glow.
To the extreme I rock the mic like a vandal
(?????) and wax a chump like a candle.
Dance. Bum rush a speaker that booms.
I’m killing your brain like a poisonous mushroom.
Deadly when I hear a dope melody
Anything less than the best is a felony.
Love it or leave it, you’d better (????)
(?????), this kid don’t play.
If there was a problem, yo, I’d solve it.
(?????) while the deejay revolves it.
My memory is a vast wasteland of useless information.
Light up the stage and..
Damnit I can’t remember the rest either and am too lazy to google.
But you’re welcome Rando!
Forgiveness is pointless, I don’t need anyone’s justification for my actions. As for being on “my moral high-horse”, I’m a misanthropic sociopath, do you really think I have morals?!
A true sociopath would never tell people they’re a sociopath, as they probably aren’t aware of their inability to have remorse.
Yeah, this is discussed in a post on another LOL later, the consensus was that I’m not really a sociopath, I’m just a little off. Also you’re thinking of a psychopath, a sociopath is a person who is detached from social ideas.
But my point wasn’t which is better. Merely that by not believing in god, you are believing in his non-existence. – A belief system. One which may or may not impact your life in any meaningful way.
For example, I believe in alternate universes. We have no empirical proof for them (that I am aware of) so it is a belief system for me to say that I believe they exist. It really doesn’t impact how I live my life at all, unless you count the random daydream about what the other mes might be doing.
And my point is that: it’s not that I have a belief in any gods’ non-existence. I do however not have any belief in any gods nor their existence. I’d call atheism a “livsåskådning” (“a way to look at life”) but not a belief system. This might appear to be only semantics, but I am of the opinion that it’s a bit more than that.
A world-view (as Christians call it). Which is a valid description of it.
But my question would be – if there one day was a provable god, would it impact your reality in a ground-shaking way? (i.e. would the provable existence of a god, no matter what form it took, somehow rock how you view the world, and make you redefine many things in your “way to look at life” or “world-view,” or would it merely be a new fact to add to your knowledge base?)
Because I would argue that if you truly have no belief one way or another proof or disproof would be treated as merely another datum point to be collected along with the new dwarf planets being discovered on the edge of our solar system.
But I’m coming at this discussion from a philosophical standpoint, not a personal one.
Oh, right, then I am with you a bit more, I think (and then the question is much more interesting). I have a tendency to think of the not believing in preposterous things not as beliefs in itself.
I think many new facts to add to the knowledge base rocks one’s world in one way or the other, but yes, if something turned out to be real that I today define as “fantasy” – gods, unicorns, Santa, homeopathy, Narnia, Hogwarts, yes – it’d probably rock my world. I guess in that way of looking at it, I have a belief system in that I believe there is reality and there is fantasy, and atheism would be a subset of that.
The way I define it though, I still say not believing is not a belief. ;p
I guess where I come from on the not believing in something is a belief system is because of all the things that would have been dismissed as preposterous a century ago (like man walking on the moon), that have since been proven to not only be not preposterous, but provable, and doable.
If, rather, there is a genuine non-opinion on a topic that can only be believed not proven, this would seem to me to be the point where you can call it “not a belief.” (i.e. agnostics)
Though your post does bring up the more interesting question of how does one define reality vs. fantasy, and how does that impact how one lives?
Agnostics are more believers than atheists in my experience. (BIG caveat: There are many definitions of atheists and agnostics, and this depends verily on what the person themself will autolabel as.) Many agnostics go “Well, I don’t believe, but I think that since I can’t disprove any idea I can’t say it’s bollocks”, which would make their life fecking awful if they actually lived by it in all walks of life.
Me, personally, find the line between reality and fantasy rather clear. It’s not thin, nor fuzzy, but that might just be the way I’m wired.
Oh, and thanks for the lively discussion! =-D
Thank you. It’s refreshing to be able to have a discussion on the net where a disagreement can actually be argued about and discussed rather than reverting to poo-flinging.
Belief SYSTEM implies a uniform group of views stemming from a key belief. Atheists are only loosely unified by a rejection of the idea of a God. I personally cannot say whether or not God exists because there is no evidence either way, but I know a guy who absolutely believes there is no God and rejects any possibility that one might exist. Every atheist has their own unique views, united only by a diebelief in a God.
But there is a word for people who cannot say one way or another about a god’s existence – it’s agnosticism.
I will agree that perhaps stating it’s a “belief SYSTEM” implies there is more than one belief being held. What I meant was merely that true atheism (Belief that there is no god) IS, in fact, a belief. That’s all I was getting at.
Wow I missed a lot today, i choose to point out an objection here. I agree, I personally believe there is no god…the closest anyone has ever come to describing what i believe is Taoism, oddly enough, but anyway while atheists Believe things. Belief does not a religion make. A religion in my opinion must be organized and as said before atheism has no organization to it. we don’t have a doctrine, we don’t get memos, we don’t all believe the same thing even. We don’t even get a cult status. So, back to way before…i have yet to see any definition of religion that includes atheism.
If it only takes belief…well there’s toddlers that believe monsters are under the bed. Does that mean they should start to get church rights and tax exemptions?
Are you suggesting my Church of the Cookie Monster isn’t real? I’ll have you know we have 7 members now, including Bert & Ernie!
See my linky below…
As I just said – agnostics are more intertwined with a belief than atheists. The idea that being “open” to belief in a god is a sign of a broad mind is mostly a reflection of the culture we live in. The only thing speaking for religious believes is “so many people are doing it” which is nonsense. So an agnostic, who say “hey, they might be right, I dunno”, is much nearer a believer than an atheist who goes “that’s a lovely fantasy, but there is no connection to reality in it”.
Although, it could be argued that “belief system” doesn’t necessarily imply that it must be the same belief system for all atheists, any more than Christianity is the same for all Christians, or Islam is the same for all Muslims, etc, etc, etc. It could be said that “belief system” merely implies that what is being believed has an impact on other parts of that person’s life than just the one item under discussion.
Hm. In that case atheism certainly isn’t a system. To go back to earlier discussion – yes, if anything of the (by my definition) preposterous things turned out to be real, that’d surely make me dizzy in my perception of reality, but not impact much more. I think. Hard to speculate on what’d really happen if I found Narnia in my closet.
OooOOo. Excellent rebuttal. In which case my above argument for my mis-chosen term “Belief system” just evaporated in a puff of logic. I wonder if I can go off and prove that black is white now. Or maybe you will?
But see, Narnia has already had it’s end of the world moment…so sadly you cannot find Narnia in your closet. Unless you do, in which case my whole belief system involving Narnia (no I don’t really have one) would collapse into rubble and I’d spend my days sobbing.
Although, I must wonder how you can make the argument that it isn’t, because above you stated you viewed it as a way of looking at life, which would seem to, by definition, impact other areas of your life than just the existence or non-existence of God and your belief, disbelief, or apathy toward it. Wouldn’t it?
Is this blog the gathering of America’s intellectuals?
Why you gotta be so separatist?
And I don’t know about intellectuals (at least not as far as I’m concerned), I just like to play with philosophy every now and then.
And it’s not a blog.. just sayin’
Does it hurt?
Hmm, but how do you know which part of Narnia’s history people could possibly be transferred to in their closet? ;p
I think, for me, the expression “a way of looking at life” is more as an explanation towards religious people (and/or believers in other esoteric galimatias) who question how a life can be lead without the belief in a god. I seriously don’t walk outside in the morning and think “Oh, what wonderful world that no god has created for us to live in“. It’s a way of looking at life without the belief in supernatural things, not a way of looking at life with the non-belief in supernatural things…
That describes Ted Kennedy perfectly.
CALLING yourself an “atheist” is no different than CALLING yourself a Christian, Jew etc…
Therefore, it’s the same thing.
Spending your life hating the fact that the vast vast vast majority of the people in the world are and always have been part of some form of organized religion is no different than spending it worshiping some real/imagined “God”.
If you really can’t handle the fact that most people believe in some form of “God”, kill yourself and find out once and for all who’s right.
That’ll teach em!!
Someone has angered Zombie JFK!!!
the same could be said of any religion or belief. If you don’t like islam, hinduism, atheism, christianity…blah blah blah. tough luck.
I think JFK has found his CALLING.
Go on with your worshipe and be happy with that, by all means.
Linky!
Oh… Yes, I suppose redefining “religion” would be one way to be able to define atheism as religion. :p
The request was merely to show where atheism had been defined as a religion. This was done in the court system. Hence the citation. I figured it might hold a bit more weight than citing something that came from another religion.
Yes, my response was to the article, not to you linking to it. Sorry that that was unclear.
Gotcha! No worries.
As an agnostic bordering on atheist who was raised as a Roman Catholic back when civics and American history were actually taught based on reality, I have to laugh when post-1980 graduates get all caught up in the words “respecting an establishment of religion” while completely and totally missing the concept of “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in their overwrought efforts to ensure that a tiny angel doll doesn’t end up on top of a yule tree (the tree is a co-opted pagan symbol, BTW) in any remotely municipal setting.
As much as I’d like to have freedom FROM the Green’s and their neo-religion, no matter how much I torture the words in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers, I can’t somehow invent a freedom FROM religion in any of the Founders’ writings.
So I’m as equally unprotected from seeing non-secular holiday decorations as from the Greens chanting their eco-myths, and I can live with that on a freedom of speech basis.
BUT, if the federal government is prohibited from either establishing or supporting a national religion based primarily on the unprovable beliefs of some guys in sandals a few millennia ago, shouldn’t the federal government also be prohibited from establishing a tax-funded religion based primarily on outdated computer games and the unprovable beliefs of some guys in Birkenstocks a decade ago?
Apparently we have folks who think “respecting an establishment of religion” means the same thing as “establishing a religion.” Survey says EEEERNT.
LOLZ… not fightz…
and in math the empty set is a subset of the whole set… therefore not allowing religion is allowing nonreligion and from there the whole universe unravels… its a paradox
You divided by zero!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooooooo
Ooh, I have an idea. Let’s get into the circular-logic-fest of whether or not atheism is a religion.
*raises hand*
oo, oo, call me! i know this one!
it’s 4, right?
I thought it was 42…
Sectarian squabbles, dontcha know…. we’ll be hearing from teh people who think it is “2″ pretty soon.
Apparently you do not know what atheism is or what the word religion means.
How do you reach that conclusion from him saying that the arguments about whether it is or not tend to be a circular-logic-fest?
Because religion is a belief with no supporting evidence.
Atheism is a lack of belief based on a lack of supporting evidence.
That was probably a good answer to some question, but not to the one I asked.
I don’t see the relationship either.
Good, that means I am not going crazy, at least.
Religion and logic NEVER mix, at least not anymore.
Organized Atheism is as much of a “religion” as organized Christianity.
Too many college professors don’t understand the difference between deism and theism, nor the difference between Atheism and an atheist.
No arguments here. Organized atheism is a religion in my book. I find organizations of individuals with the same ideology repulsive.
I think when you add structure and extra rules to any given ideology, you’ve pretty much ruined things. This includes Christianity. As it has been noted here, I am a Christian. HOWEVER, I don’t attend church, and consider many churches to exist for their own sake, not for Christianity. I completely believe the Roman Catholic church worships itself instead of God. I prefer to keep my beliefs to myself as no one in the world will ever share my exact same beliefs. I use the Bible, specifically the New Testament, as the basis of my beliefs. I try to keep it as close to the teaching of Christ himself as possible, often being suspicious even of the books following the gospels. So yeah, I try to keep my religion focused and out of other people’s way. I’m hoping both you and ReligionIsDumb will like that.
I have no problem with that at all.
Yup. As soon as you buy in to any form of “this is how you should think and argue if you wanna be in our KEWL CROWD”, things go pear-shaped. :p
Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
if you look at both of them as businesses then you might find more similarities
Agreed. So, then, how about: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No one will be so dumb as to believe that means that some arms are ok and some not. And “to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”. Anybody not clear on that, or should we include a clause saying, “even if it’s not politically correct”? Oh, here’s a good one: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Surely everyone will understand that that means the government can’t just take property away from someone because someone else needs it?
Right?
Doesn’t matter what side you’re on, most people will
1)Pick out what suits them, and
2)Make it mean whatever they want it to.
not without due process of the law first. they don’t just take your stuff, they prove immanent domain first.
You omitted something there: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”
In the time they made the Constitution, they were still under the threat of outside attack from other countries. So, people needed to protect (key word here) themselves from invaders. Today, this isn’t so much a big deal.
Also, as much as a person has a “right” to bear arms (which isn’t even specified in the Constitution; people can arm themselves with anything like knives and bats), it doesn’t give a person the right to use it in any way they want. The only reason people need a weapon is to use as a defensive measure, not offensive. The reason some arms are banned for purchase in this country, like assault rifles, because there is no logical reason for a civilian to use such a weapon that is made for a military use.
In addition to that, it is up to the states to determine who is competent enough to use dangerous weapons like guns as to avoid as little conflict as possible. Would you give a blind person a gun? Or a schizophrenic? They have rights to bear them, but the threat of their ownership outweighs their ability to protect. Not only that, gun salesmen aren’t going to give guns to people who are discovered to have a criminal record. Those with criminal records pretty much “waive” their right to bear arms, because they are an enemy of the state, not part of the security of the state.
Having had this discussion with constitutional law professors, I won’t bother going too deep into it here, but, as a constructive matter of law, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” stands entirely on its own, and means exactly what it says: people can own and carry arms, period, end of story.
Those who get worked up on the words “A well regulated militia,” and try to turn that into the idea that the right only exists in the absence of an organized army, and only necessary to protect from foreign threats, have missed the point of the first statement entirely.
When the Founders spoke of a militia (armed citizenry) being necessary to the security of a free state, one needs to remember who the Founders were, and what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights wasn’t created as a thank-you gift to the citizenry, it was created as an additional set of limits on a federal government that the Founders intended to be strictly limited.
The Founders had just kicked out the biggest military power in the world, so foreign military threats were far less of a concern to them than tyranny from within, as evidenced by their desire to further restrict the federal government through the Bill of Rights.
In the context of a group of statesmen who were very concerned about tyranny from within, writing a document to prevent same, that first phrase explains that they saw an armed citizenry was necessary to prevent tyranny from within, so they prevented the federal government from infringing on the citizens’ right to own and carry arms.
Yes, there is certainly a place for the citizens of a state or city to agree on realistic limitations. Even in the Founders’ day, they recognized that the needs and realities of urban Philadelphia were far different of those in the mountains of Virginia, thus their deference to local regulation in all but a limited set of circumstances.
That was really gross.
Yeah…I think I took my metaphor too far…
Aww, how cute! The little conservapuppet hasn’t discovered he live in a little box!
Dude. Really? Do you ALWAYS have to be condescending?
Only when there isn’t anyone else doing it, and i did apoligize after I realized i had misunderstood.
You still don’t have to be a condescending dickwad to people. It seems to be your schtick so far.
Wrath is the best way to get people to show their true nature, if no one else is pissing people off I’ll do it.
Wrath is a response to someone being mean. I’m going to infer that you just get off on a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Those Christians are so mean! Just look at how they act when I tell them they are delusional, and evil. Jesus wouldn’t have acted that way so I must be right.”
You just write people off so you don’t have to listen to them, and then just feel superior about it.
I take pleasure in figuring out how people work, is that so wrong? I’m not judging them, just analyzing what I see them put forth. My problem is that I have really poor social skills, especially when it comes to interpreting words. I generally can figure someone out by reading their voice tones and body language to see how they’re really reacting to what is said, but his doesn’t work through the internet so I need to experience people angry to read them, as anger removes all those pesky little social filters everyone talks through normally. Usually I don’t need to be the instigator of such behaviour, but in this case it was necessary to achieve what I wanted. I never actually try to be condescending, people just perceive me that way because I don’t really understand what people tend to find offensive, which is part of why I’m trying to figure people out. Like I said earlier, I’m a sociopath; I’ll manipulate individuals in any way I see as necessary to attain my objectives.
P.S. If you really ever got to know me I’m actually a nice person.
Dude I finally agree with you on something. People assume they’re such good liars, but their body always gives them away. The only problem that I see is that I have no idea what sort of endgame you have. We’re having discussions. I’d assume from that that you’d want to join, but if you just want to discuss then why make people mad to find out their true self? It’s not like you can come through the computer and do something to us. It just seems like there still isn’t a reason to make people mad on purpose.
Try telling that to the trolls who love coming in here and throwing verbal gasoline on everyone’s fire.
Hey, I’m not a toll!
@ Religionisdumb.
You. It’s stupid people like you that make this world an awful place to live in and that have made me into a misanthrope. Do the world a favor and go kill yourself in the most ironic way possible. I recommend cryogenicaly freezing yourself until either WWIII or global warming destroys the Earth.
I’m sorry do you have a dispute with one of the points I made in my post? Did you not like the presentation(Rando didn’t)? Or did you just feel like insulting somebody for no reason? I think you didn’t like what I had to say, but couldn’t repudiate it, so you just resorted to insults. Prove me wrong.
I am actually in favor of gun-control. Its just that the constitution flatly says we can’t do it. So we really need to change the constitution to define “arms” more clearly. The term is too general in the constitution as written.
@ Religionisdumb again
I must apoligize, I misenterpreted what you wrote and accidentally thought that you were supporting a crazy conservative viewpoint. However the second paragraph still baffles me.
the second paragraph was a hyperbolic metaphor. I can see where you could have misconstrued my meaning. I got a little carried away. The shrine bit was meant to be making fun of the things that conservatives say about liberals: that they are all perverted drug addicts that like to kill babies and old people. I thought I went hyperbolic enough that nobody would think I was someone who actually thought that and it would be clear I was being facetious. I guess you know some really messed up conservatives
. I really do not like that everybody just ignores the second amendment and fights over HOW MUCH we are going to violate it rather than how it needs to change to accomodate a modern world with lots of new and interesting ways of killing people.
1) The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as they are its first 10 Amendments, and once an Amendment has been ratified, it becomes a part of the Constitution.
2) The Bill of Rights does not, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, contain the phrase ‘Separation of Church and State’.
3) Article Six contains the phrase “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
4) Thomas Jefferson penned the following:
“…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 and state,” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, who were concerned that the State of Connecticut treated the freedom of religion as a priviledge granted by the legislature, rather than immutable rights. In the end, Jefferson’s purpose in this letter was to reaffirm that the Legislature (on a NATIONAL level) could pass no law regarding religion, and the Executive, bound by what the legislature had passed, could not act with regards to religion.
5) The Consitution does afford the Supreme Court of the United States the duty of interpretting the meaning of what is contained within the Constitution. The Court has often quoted the above letter in these matters, but has been hardly uniform in these judgements.
6) Jefferson was also not what you would call a traditional Christian. He was a Deist, who followed the philosphies of Christ, going so far as to make his own arrangement of the Bible (Google ‘Jefferson Bible’) that omitted miracles and many dogmatic phrases in order to create what he believed to be the core of the philosophical and moral beliefs of Christ.
In the end, speaking strictly Constitutionally, these matters should be left to the many States. Many States follow the idea of no establishment of religion, and, as they establish public education, civic and judiciary offices and the like, they in turn attempt to establish religious neutrality in these spaces, and hold the executives and employees of these establishments to that standard. This, too, is done in an inconsistent fashion, which leads to much quarreling over the extent of this reach.
That’s my take, anyway.
It would have made more sense if the concept had actually been addressed within the Constitution as many think it is. More than that, the entire topic is meant as the Government not being allowed ot establish a State religion. I’d like to have politics and religion both banned from schools myself.
It isn’t as if they teach civics properly anymore anyway.
I heard that
My take on the quality of this thread: Most of the people that can easily be perceived by what they write here as “left-leaning” have an embarrassingly tenuous grasp on what we called “Civics” back in the day. Those here who appear to be on the “right” don’t seem to have the time (or some the ability) to write what they mean without having it distorted by the first group I mentioned.
ALL OF WHICH makes the caption IRONICALLY HILARIOUS.
For the record: The main objection, absent the whole “you’re misinterpreting it, no YOU are” argument, is that the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, had not yet been incorporated into the Constitution at the time depicted in the painting. But that objection becomes amusingly moot as you all prove the caption author’s point ad absurdum. Carry on.
Well, thanks for dropping by! Want some cobbler?
I’d rather have apple pie. I’ve been craving it.
Would you like apple pie a la mode? I found some ice-cream. *offers Jane a slice of pie a la mode*
Mmmmmmmm. ^_^
German Chocolate for me, yes it’s available as a pie.
*misses having a Marie Callender’s Restaurant within driving distance*
If the founding fathers didn’t want Congress to make a law establishing a national religion, they would have written that. Instead, they prohibited Congress from making a law *respecting* an establishment of religion. That means showing favor or disfavor to any religious institution. It’s a much broader prohibition that includes the establishment of a national religion.
Exactly…I don’t understand what people are being so nit picky about. Even though it isn’t explicitly said in the Constitution, it is pretty much implied in the 1st Amendment. The government can’t say “Religion X is going to be helping us run the country”, nor can they say “Religion X is illegal”. That pretty much sums up “Separation of Church and State” there.
Most of us are being nitpicky about a technicality. Most of us I’m pretty sure believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. But the words specifically aren’t in the constitution. That’s the only point of contention for a lot of us.
Yes the words are; that’s what the bit about “no establishment of a religion” means.
And incidentally, I’m a disestablishmentarianist.
Technically the words “separation of church and state” are not in the constitution. Show me where those EXACT WORDS ARE. We all agree that’s what it implies. THOSE EXACT WORDS AREN’T IN THERE! Why is this such a big goddamn deal?
So you’re arguing about what the words physically are, not what they mean?
Precisely. I totally 100% believe in separation of church and state, and that this is what they were implying. They just didn’t say it outright in the amendment. Silly argument, isn’t it?
“Respecting” as “in respect to.” It means regarding, not showing respect to.
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone’s rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person’s privacy.
*12. to relate or have reference to.*
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Judges, politicians and the ACLU always seem to overlook that part.
Free exercise of your delusion does not include making laws that force it upon others or deny others rights because your stupid fairytale book says something they do is wrong.
You do not have the right to force your religion on me. Your right to practice your religion ends where my right to be a rational human being begins.
amen
The problem is that CLEARLY you assume that being an atheist automatically makes you more rational then anyone else.
That is a very irrational thing to do.
Except that, by definition, one who refuses to believe in something whose existence cannot be proven is thinking more rationally than one who believes in something despite complete lack of evidence. That’s what rationality means.
Okay fine. Then being that way just makes him an arrogant prick.
See, that statement I have no issue with
True dat, bro.
Ah, I am arrogant prick for not being irrational and not believing in your idiotic delusion.
Guess that makes you a threat to all humanity.
You are an arrogant prick for spitting on what other people believe. If you want to be a total asshole and decide all religious people are delusional and crazy, then fine. Keep it to yourself. Who the fvck do you think you are coming in here and telling us all how stupid and idiotic we are? I can’t prove God exists, and you can’t prove God doesn’t. I don’t need proof. I’ve got all I need to believe. And if you think that makes me idiotic, then good. I didn’t particularly want a butthurt loser like you liking me anyway. In fact, call my beliefs idiotic some more. It just reassures me that I’m on the right track. You. Are. Worthless.
but a rational arrogant prick!
Make that two.
You are going for an “Appeal to Ignorance.” Its categorized as one of the 15 major logical fallacies, which claims that “Something is true simply because it can’t be disproved, or that something is untrue because it cannot be proved.”
That is NOT what rationality means. As long as their is not enough evidence to prove or disprove something, an individual cannot make an absolute claim without being hypocritical.
^ This is a rational thing to say. Thank you, sir.
And (others) read my above post regarding the “no evidence” claims. I’ll sum it up: Explain to me HOW the big bang happened. Before you do that you’re not any more rational than a Christian who believes God did it intentionally. Effectively, as an atheist, you have no evidence that there is no God, and I have evidence (Big Bang–Thank you guys for supporting Genesis 1 on that one, by the way) that there is.
Please read my reply above to your longest post. Don’t care if you agree, but you cannot say we don’t have evidence behind our beliefs, because that is an irrational, ignorant, bitter lie, and I just hope you know that.
I have stated my take on the big bang theory already. I’m not sure where it falls in relation to this posting, but it’s here somewhere. Also there is no evidence that supports the story in Genesis anywhere, you’re not making any sense. Not that you ever have in the past Eso.
owned
um…well..he was insulting, but you really DONT have the right to practice your religion wherever the hell you please. If your religion requires human sacrifice, you may not practice it in the U.S., as that would infringe upon others rights to..you know…live. Likewise, if your religion says that a woman raped in the city and a rebellious child are to be stoned to death (see deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24), then you may not practice said religion in the united states. If your religion says that those who do not agree with your religion are infidels that must be purged, you may not practice your religion in the united states. As Dave said, your right to your religion ends where other peoples’ rights begin. Practicing your religion can not trample on and impede the rights of others, but many of the major religions of the world have trampling on the rights on non-believers built into them. That is why, if they had political power, everyone not of that faith would become oppressed in a big big hurry.
Hmm.. Actually.. No.. Ah nevermind. I don’t want to get into it.
Please let me comment briefly that “separation of church and state” DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST IN ANY LEGAL DOCUMENTS, and ESPECIALLY not the CONSTITUTION. Just wanted to point that out….seriously, look it up. Read the whole constitution and bill of rights.
First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which means that the Government will not make any law establishing or supporting a specific religion.
Maybe you shouldn’t get your civics knowledge from your overgrown death cult.
Nothing in there actually means, “separation of Church and state.” It means there cannot be a law making one religion the “required faith”, or another saying you can’t believe in a certain faith. That’s not what separation of Church and state has become to mean. Separation of Church and state has come to mean if some sort of publicly funded place puts up a Christmas Tree, or has something that says Merry Christmas, they better have a good lawyer.
Perhaps you shouldn’t get your civics lessons from some liberal pundit.
Really, so the entire part about the government not establishing a religion dopesn’t exist?
Putting up a CHRISTmas tree is not government endorsing a specific religion? Really? You are going to claim that? Especially if it refuses to put up the symbols of other religious holidays?
You death cultists need to get a clue. You don’t have the right to force your delusion on everyone else.
You’re an idiot. You clearly didn’t read what I said.
If putting up a Christmas Tree offends you, I’m sorry you didn’t get that super awesome Atari that you always wanted, but stop whining about it. The government isn’t forcing you to do anything. No law has been passed requiring you to acknowledge Christianity.
Thanks to “activist” judges, and no thanks to you death cultists who still try pass such laws and pass laws against things they think are against the bible.
Death cult? Where the fvck do you get that idea? Are you seriously that angry towards religion? Why? What did it ever do to you? You need some serious anger management, dude.
Well, gods favorite way to solve problems seems to be death.
Drown the world, human sacrifices..
God is somewhat of a prick at times…
Seriously, were you run over by the popemobile as a child? What is your vicious opposition to religion? I have no desire to force my religion on you, but the least you could do is respect it enough to not be an asshat about it. You can stop forcing your rather nasty brand of atheism on me at any point.
DUDE, maybe he WAS run over by the popemobile! You don’t know! Dave is pretty pissed, but he has a right to be. He isn’t pissed at you though Rando. The problem is all the crazy people like this fellow right above you who DO want to force their religion on the rest of us. It is downright scary how bad they want it too. They hate us non-believers and they want to make it impossible for us to live here. They want us to pay for their faith based initiatives..pay to display the ten commandments all over the place. They want to force us to conduct sexual congress in the “appropriate” way(missionary ONLY, see Texas laws still on the books regarding sodomy). They want to teach our children the Bible in the only school we can afford which we are required BY LAW to send our children to. GHWB said we shouldn’t be considered citizens or patriots…even those who serve our country in the military. It is scary, and with all the insults coming at us from the Bill O’Reilly crowd, it is difficult not to get a little pissed ourselves. My name is a tribute to the fact that in religious conversations, it really doesn’t matter what you say, but more how loudly you say it and how often. So my name is basically a billboard for my position. It doesn’t describe the nuances..like that I don’t think religious PEOPLE are dumb…not all of them anyway. I think the concept of a religion is dumb. People don’t need a support group for their personal beliefs. That is why they are called PERSONAL beliefs. They are yours. They are not your church’s. They shouldn’t be codified so that everyone has the same set of personal beliefs. It restricts free thought and ideas and is just, in general a very dumb idea. I think believing that there is a magical fairy man living in the clouds that cares what you are doing in the bedroom, or the bathroom…or even cares about you in any way…is pretty ridiculous, but I have this ridiculous fear of bees that most people find ridiculous, so ya know, I try not to judge. But I don’t try and get government money to eradicate the bee population in the united states. And likewise, I would expect others not to try to get the govt. to help promote their contemptible (by that I mean…able to be held in contempt by others and not the more common connotation of “held in contempt by all”) beliefs. Unfortunately, those of no faith are under constant siege and vitriol from the religious right and it is inevitable, that we will eventually grow tired of being victims and begin to spew vitriol ourselves. Unfortunately, reasonable people like you often get caught in the spray.
Interesting how your persecution complex empowers you, and only you, to oppress the population at large with your own personal beliefs.
How brilliantly obtuse you are, Dhoti. How awesomely you construct straw men. How mind-staggering is your ability to state the opposite of reality, while believing it to be true.
I’m sorry, did you have an actual, rational response you wanted to put up for discussion? You know how obtuse I am — you have to lay these things out for me.
How about this: please explain where you got the idea that the poster known as “ReligionIsDumb” wishes to “oppress the population at large with [their] own personal beliefs.” I could ask about your diagnosis of “persecution complex,” but that’s a different matter entirely.
In other words, I say that there was NOTHING in ReligionIsDumb’s comment that could have led you to a rational conclusion that this poster wishes done what you say they want done. That is what led me to my determination that you are obtuse, that you were arguing by the use of straw men, and that you believe what is factually not true.
He spends his entire post not just defending Dave’s right to spew vitriol (his words), but validating it. And what does Dave advocate? Oppression of dissenting opinion, particularly what he sees as majority opinion. I certainly don’t see him disclaiming it — quite the contrary, in fact.
Context, you see, is important in these situations.
You’re right, context is important. It might surprise you to know that I actually read Dave’s comments above, prior to my first reply to you, Dhoti. In light of that context, it is clear that nowhere does Dave or ReligionIsDumb advocate for the “oppression of dissenting opinion.”
You say that ReligionIsDumb “spends his entire post not just defending Dave’s right to spew vitriol (his words), but validating it.” First question: why do think Dave doesn’t have the right to “spew vitriol”? Second question: where do you get the idea that Dave wants to oppress opinions?
Dave did say this: “Free exercise of your delusion does not include making laws that force it upon others or deny others rights because your stupid fairytale book says something they do is wrong.
You do not have the right to force your religion on me. Your right to practice your religion ends where my right to be a rational human being begins.” Do you really consider that oppression?
You also imply that “majority opinion” is somehow sacrosanct. That is, of course, ridiculous.
In summary: ReligionIsDumb’s post does not condone the “oppression of dissenting opinion” in any way. That is reality, yours to accept or reject as you decide.
I am giving “context” to Dave’s comments…validating? no. And I don’t see anywhere dave is advocating oppression of dissenting opinion. I see him vivaciously expressing his opinion that the “death cultists” need to get a clue and that they don’t have the right to force their religion on others. But I don’t see where he advocates their oprression. Perhaps it is elsewhere in the thread. I am afraid that you don’t understand what oppression means..and this whole series of posts would then be quite pointless (unlike other conversations about religion which are TOTALLY constructive). To you..oppression seems to be being denied the right to force other people to pay for your religious props…like christmas trees…U.S. tax dollars pay for the maintenance and decoration of that tree…not private donation. So muslim americans pay for your CHRISTmas tree as do we atheists and agnostics who don’t subscribe to your particular cult. (Q. What is the difference between a cult and a religion? A. The number of followers..thats it…thus..some may choose to call all religions cults. I don’t speak for Dave, but I am guessing that is why he refers to it as a cult. The death part is probably because christians are obsessed with Jesus’ death and how he died for our sins so much that the story of his life, the compelling part of the religion, is often over-looked) But I digress (again). You seem to think OPPRESSION is expressing an opinion. I can see how you might think that. opinion-expression mashed together would make the word oprression, but that isn’t what it actually means. Expressing opinions is also the only thing Dave and I have done. We haven’t oppressed anybody…maybe annoyed some people..actually, probably a lot of people, but its not like we passed a law making you listen to us teach you about the evils of religion in public schools or anything. In conclusion…spewing vitriol is not oppression. It is rude. It is mean, but it isn’t oppression until the government helps you do it.
How appropriate — to chide me for supposedly using straw men, you use one yourself. (Or can you show where I said that Dave doesn’t have the right to speak? Or where I gave “majority opinion” special standing? Go ahead; I’ll wait.)
Even though you’ll ignore or twist it — in case anyone else is listening: of course Dave’s “my right to be a rational human being” dividing line is oppressive. Think about it: he’s saying he has the right to not be exposed to *any* practice or opinion he disagrees with, even if it doesn’t impact him in any way. How is that *not* oppressive?
In summary: stick to arguing with your straw man; you’re on the same level. (Given your demonstrated lack of independent thought upthread, I don’t exactly find this surprising.)
Straw men abound — unless you can show me where I said that, you clod.
Dave definitely, and you possibly, seem to believe that you have the right to not be offended, for whatever definition of “offended” you choose. (I should have phrased my response to clamboy that way — but no matter, the poor guy won’t get it anyway.) And Dave clearly refuses to show the same deference that he demands everyone else show him. Ergo, oppression — believe what Dave believes, act like he acts, unless you’re in a deep, dark corner where he can’t possibly see or know. (And likely not even then.)
Dhoti, you say, “How appropriate — to chide me for supposedly using straw men, you use one yourself. (Or can you show where I said that Dave doesn’t have the right to speak? Or where I gave “majority opinion” special standing? Go ahead; I’ll wait.)”
In response, I will quote you again, Dhoti – “He spends his entire post not just defending Dave’s right to spew vitriol (his words), but validating it. And what does Dave advocate? Oppression of dissenting opinion, particularly what he sees as majority opinion.” In other words, QED.
Dhoti, you say, “Even though you’ll ignore or twist it — in case anyone else is listening: of course Dave’s ‘my right to be a rational human being’ dividing line is oppressive. Think about it: he’s saying he has the right to not be exposed to *any* practice or opinion he disagrees with, even if it doesn’t impact him in any way. How is that *not* oppressive?”
You are wrong, and that is that. Dave clearly thinks that people have the right to adhere to, and express, a religion, but that they do not have the right to make their religious beliefs law, simply because they believe it. That is not oppression.
Finally, you say, “In summary: stick to arguing with your straw man; you’re on the same level. (Given your demonstrated lack of independent thought upthread, I don’t exactly find this surprising.)”
Well, I did draw first blood with my rightly recognizing your use of straw men, your obtuseness, and your preference for fantasy over reality, so I am happy to let that final silliness stand.
You know me, I’m just too obtuse to follow your detailed, thoughtful arguments — “You are wrong, and that is that”, in particular, is well beyond my humble ability.
First blood, huh? LOL! Talk about retreating with your tail held high…I love it!
*sigh* All I can say is that the “they started it” argument doesn’t really hold water, and insulting other people’s beliefs just supports the stereotype that atheists are assholes who love mocking those with religion. Liberals promote acceptance of those who don’t have religion, but it also has to promote acceptance of those who do. Otherwise we become as intolerant and hateful as those we’re against (the religious right wingers who want to force religion on everyone). Dave sounds like he’s totally full of hate, and has not said anything about being okay with those who are religious and don’t force it on people.
FTR, I see no problem with Christmas trees being anywhere since they’re actually pagan symbolism that Christianity picked up to try to recruit pagans into the religion. Christianity did that a LOT in the early centuries of its existence. I’d be pissed if the nativity scene showed up in city hall, but a Christmas tree? Honestly, what does a tree have to do with Christmas???
Christianity is a death cult.
You worship a dead man.
The highest form of worship is to die for Christianity.
The reward for being a good Christian comes after death.
Why do Christians worship and follow the bible? To build their castle in heaven for after they die.
The punishment for not being a good Christian not only is death but continues after death.
Also, Judaism is a blood cult and Islam is a murder and war cult.
And you apparently are forming a jackass cult where you go around slagging people who disagree with you. You’re no better than the people you insult. And if you really believe that about Christianity, then all you believe are stereotypes and you know nothing about us. Go be an atheist. Have fun. I hope you love it. Leave us the fvck alone.
Do not lie about the actions of your cult. Your religion tries to force itself upon everyone. I see it every weekend.
Why should I respect your delusion which is based on a fairy tale written down in a book?
Your ilk try to have your fairy tales taught as science in schools and you dare say that you don’t try to force your religion on others?
Conversely, why should we respect your delusion, which is based on the misguided “right to not be offended” elevated to an art form?
Quoting Dhoti:“my right to be a rational human being” dividing line is oppressive. Think about it: he’s saying he has the right to not be exposed to *any* practice or opinion he disagrees with, even if it doesn’t impact him in any way.
Response: WTF? how does having a right to be a rational human being mean he can’t be exposed to *any* practice or opinion he disagrees with? It just means exactly what it says…that he has a right to be a rational human being and not be force-fed religion by the govt. You can do whatever the hell you want. Nobody is trying to restrict your right to be a delusional sycophant. Hell we are trying to make sure the govt. can’t stop you from being a delusional sycophant. Because, if they can’t stop you, they can’t stop us from believing what we want either. I mean, sure, Dave is being an ass, but your counter-arguments trying to make him look like an oppressor are just ridiculous. He can’t oppress you..he has no political power. He is an atheist. No atheist could ever win politcal office in the U.S. Attack ads in Texas accuse the democratic candidate of being an atheist (and according to Texas constitution, he is then ineligible to hold public office–patently unconstitutional, but it has never been challenged because no atheist can get elected anyway). You clearly have no notion of wtf the words people are typing mean. Dave hates your religion. He hates your belief system. He probably hates you, but NOWHERE has he said ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembles the kind of oppression that the religious right want to bring about in this country..the scariest of which is teaching religion in public schools.
“right not to be offended”? I don’t want that right. I want the right to not have govt. tell me, or my children what is “right” and what is “wrong” and have the govt. not teach my children what IT thinks is the “right” belief system. I like to think that if atheists were the majority we wouldn’t teach children in school that their parents silly ideas about gods and goblins are just fairy tales. All I am asking is that Christians don’t try to teach my children that my belief system (or lack thereof) is wrong.
What Dhoti is saying is that this guy doesn’t practice what he preaches. He considers the religious to be evil oppressors shoving our beliefs down his throat, but he feels he has the right to do that to us, or even worse, mock and insult us. Dhoti was calling out his hypocrisy.
well, I think we are talking about two different things. One is the christian right’s ability to oppress people *through political power*…the other is the Christian rights ability to hurl insults at us. Hurling insults and being dicks to us in general is free speech. They are free to hurl at us, and we are free to hurl back. Dave does this profusely and yes, it would be hypocritical if he were saying christians shouldn’t be allowed to insult atheists, but he isn’t. Nowhere has he said that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to express their “delusion”. He is only saying what the GOVT. should and should not be able to do. And that the Christian right should not be able to force religion on those that don’t want it through legislation. clamboy said it best:
“Dave clearly thinks that people have the right to adhere to, and express, a religion, but that they do not have the right to make their religious beliefs law, simply because they believe it. That is not oppression.”
Though he is being an ass about it…all dave is doing is expressing his beliefs about your religion. He isn’t trying to outlaw your religion. So, he is practicing exactly what he preaches and I see no hipocrisy. Personally shoving your religion down someone’s throat in a public forum is nothing more than free speech. If he tied you to the bed and lectured you about how dumb religion is, that would be against the law, and rightfully so.
“Dude, how can I be racist? I’m black!” That’s the crux of your argument, yes?
It’s almost a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, actually: defend liberty with one breath, but turn individual opinion into government policy with the invention of a vast, shadowy, entrenched conspiracy with the next, so you have “no choice” but to act like you’ve wished all along.
As (I believe) Rando already told you, blindly claiming “they did it first” is insufficient justification. Try again, please.
(And again, you assume you know my religion and belief system. Inexcusably lazy.)
Yeah, he has the right to not be offended, but apparently we don’t have that same right. He seems to think he has the right to offend us at every turn. He sickens me.
It’s really sad that you feel you have to deliberately insult Christians by calling Christianity a “death cult” when there is an honest to God Dealt Cult out there RIGHT NOW killing people for not believing in their god, killing people who stop believing in their god, and killing themselves so they can rape 72 virgins in Heaven for all eternity.
You are correct that no one has the right to force their religion on you. But you also do not have the right to prevent a majority of people from illuminating their political choices with the guiding principles of a religion whose main message is not the death of it’s founding icon but Love and Redemption. I don’t know much about how atheists view the world so I am asking in all sincerity: have you ever loved someone? What would you not have done for them? Have you ever felt relief after being forgiven for something you did that was wrong? Have you felt relief after having forgiven someone for wronging you? These are the ideas that repulse you?
FWIW, I think that Christians who, post 9/11, still have issues with other flavors of Christians (let alone non-Christians) need some perspective, to say the least. There are more of us (live-and-let-live types) then there are of them, they are just louder and on tv more. The fabled theocracy that most atheists seem to fear would find enemies in your house AND mine.
No, atheists have never loved or have any emotions whatsoever. This is a good thing, because since they also lack morals and ethics due to their lack of God’s word to follow, they would all be bad criminals, if they had had any emotions to tempt them into committing crimes.
Obviously, Owen’s attacking all atheists at once, not just this militant fundamentalist.
Levels of sarcasm reaching toxicity here guys…
*rushes in with bloody bandages on his hands*
Dear sweet Cheesus guys! Don’t touch the sarcasm! It Buuuuuurns!
OBIVOUSLY.
What a sad sad person you are. If you believe Islam is a death-cult you are truly blind to any ideas you don’t embrace personally. The people you speak of are mad extremists, nothing like any human who follows a religion or not. As for your interpretation of atheism, where do I begin. It really says a lot about you as a person. You do not see how anyone can feel anything without a religion, this tells me that the only reason you behave “morally” is out of fear of punishment by your “God”, whom without you have absolutely concept of “good” or “evil”; you are too weak to have your own views so you do and say as you’re told by the man in black. If you were convinced God wanted you to burn down a hospital, you would do so gladly. You think everyone is this way, that without guidance we are all hollow shells with no principles in which to view anything. You cannot fathom how atheists can love or be devoted to anyone but themselves, because in fact you only care about others because your “God” tells you to and have no devotions to anyone personally. You’re last statement in the second paragraph tells me you actually are the hollow shell you think others are, you believe as you’re told unquestioningly and relay it to others like a good little worker ant. You say you’re religion preaches love and understanding, the truth is that it teaches the exact opposite. Christianity tells people to hate those who are different (muslims in your case), ignore basic facts of reality (that all humans are capable of real love in your case), and to cast off any reasonable doubts that what you feel is the ultimate “right” belief. Deep down you think everyone is like you, but you’re wrong. I have met people with all sorts of backgrounds, and by far the most “moral” people I have come across are atheists. They evaluate for themselves what is “right” and what is “wrong” based on experience and logic, rather than blindly accepting an authority figure’s views like a fearful child. They aren’t arrogant and they don’t make judgements of others at a glance. They accept criticism, unlike yourself, some even welcome it as a chance to better themselves. All you care about is what other’s believe, not what they do. You are no enlightened role model to society, you a merely a tool of the church used to spread their falsehoods and slander.
P.S. The 9/11 attacks happened 8 years ago, give it a rest. I know it was a major event, but it’s not like it’s the worst thing to ever happen ever…
*grumble* Your views of Christianity are all wrong. And while I’m at it, see the previous sentence for the correct spelling of the word “you’re.” We’re not all what you think.
I apologize for the misspelling. I’m tired, and my grammar is suffering. Anyways, I wasn’t analyzing christians, I was analyzing that particular poster because I found his comment outrageously insulting to everyone in general. That said I hold my view that most of what I see coming out of religions is hate and lies, and statements like Owenkellog’s do nothing but continue to prove my views correct.
I’ll give you that OwenKellog and those like him are total morons. Not only does he not make a good case for religion, he totally slags another religion in the process. Yeah, he sucks, I’ll agree there.
To paraphrase the movie Dogma, Christianity’s problem is that they took a really good idea and built a belief structure around it. I don’t know enough about other religions to make a similar call.
Honestly, I’ve found that people like Owen there aren’t nearly as common as you might think. They’re the ones who stick out more because the rest of us don’t preach like that, we keep to ourselves (unless provoked LOL). As for the Christian religion itself (and let’s be real, it’s come under fire more than any other lately), those who use it to promote hatred aren’t real Christians in my book. The Christ in Christianity was all about love and didn’t want us judging people. I don’t get where some people use Jesus to justify their hatred. But that’s just my take on it.
I specifically stated people like him are a rare breed.
“That said I hold my view that most of what I see coming out of religions is hate and lies, and statements like Owenkellog’s do nothing but continue to prove my views correct.”
Rare breed?
Not all Christians are empty puppets like him, not by a long shot. What I mean about what religion preaches is that they preach nothing that everyone doesn’t automatically have in them from genetic programing, aside from the hate and lies they teach. Humans are social organisms, of course we try our best to avoid conflict in most situations, of course we seek acceptance after we have done something considered “bad.” What religions tell humans beyond what they already have in their DNA is that people who don’t agree with you are wrong, that if you don’t do exactly exactly what God says to you will be punished for all eternity, that you have an obligation to make people believe what you believe, that women cannot think for themselves, that your animal instincts and personal thoughts make you a bad person, and that you can’t take responsibility for anything “good” that you do because it was obviously God’s will. I’m not saying all religions or all houses of worship preach all this everywhere, but those are really the only unique sentiments that religions put out into the world.
P.S. Buddhism is exempt from all this because it’s technically not a religion. I’m not a Buddhist, I’m just trying to be as clear as possible.
@ first paragraph
really..you are going to criticize us insulting christians by calling muslims a death cult? really? That is just freaking hilarious. So it isn’t ok to call christians a death cult, but it IS ok to call muslims a death cult. The double standards and hypocrisy of this knock me down.
@ second paragraph
When the guiding principles of a religion are hate and oppression of all those of different faith, then yes, I have a BIG problem with people “illuminating” their political choices with that. And lets face it, the spectrum of christian love varies greatly depending on how christian you are. The more christian you are, the more christians love you. The less Christian you are, the more they dislike you. If you are anti-Christianity…even if you don’t hate them, they will surely hate you. When a preacher tells a man how to vote and that if he doesn’t vote properly, he will go to hell, I have a problem with that. (See John Kerry being denied communion…see people who voted for obama being denied communion)
@ third paragraph
wow…just…wow. Start your engines folks, this guy is looking for a religious war. You are not a christian..you are an anti-muslim, and I wont insult the Christians on this thread by associating you with them.
“You are not a christian..you are an anti-muslim, and I wont insult the Christians on this thread by associating you with them.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
srsly, you’re making the rest of us look bad.
the bit about the death cult was unnecessary (and seemingly unwarranted as it kind of came out of no where).
now, don’t get me wrong, i’m all for separation of church and state, but this crap about merry christmas and christmas trees not being allowed in stores is a bit excessive. i mean, hell, christians and nonchristians celebrate it these days (or at least use it as an excuse to party and get gifts), so why the fuss? can they not find something more valid or beneficial than prohibiting a wal-mart greeter from saying “merry christmas”?
my cat is buddhist btw.
I agree. I also think that largish sums of public money shouldn’t be spent on religious stuff.
i concur, pitty
public funds shouldn’t be used for religious stuff, but a private corporation or individual should be free to do what they want, as long as it’s on private property.
thing that still’s got me miffed is having to swear on the bible to testify or.. well… most anything. i thought some time back i heard you could do the “i do affirm” but, not sure what they replace the bible with.. or if they even replace it with something. i dunno
Yeah, we’re in agreement, but then again I’m a big softy for holiday decor/music/the woiks. About swearing on the bible: why swear on anything? It seems so primitive, really.
It was odd growing up as a kid of atheists (I’m agnostic btw), going to different schools in various states and mumbling through the pledge of allegiance. I was always like, wtf?
As a side note, when I’ve been sworn in at court it has been “Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
No Bible, no “so help you god.” Just that.
Well, it’s a pine tree, most likely. It’s only called a Christmas tree because people like to decorate them at Christmas, which is when a few people observe Christ’s birth, but most people just eat a lot and give each other presents.
Better not allow addition in mathematics class any more either. That “+” almost looks like a cross which has Christian meaning, and we can’t allow that. Also, we need to ban sandals and long dark hair, because you know all those Jesus pictures in churches have him with those, and we can’t allow people to look like Jesus in or near a government building. Or any government owned property like an interstate. No more crosses on the interstate. Or cars, actually, because they had wagons or other things with wheels in the Bible, and we wouldn’t want anyone on the interstate to think about the Bible because then we’d be forcing Christianity on people. You have to walk. But no sandals, and no long hair. And no names starting with a J, because then someone might think of Jesus.
Funfact: Today’s “liberals” have the same policies as the conservatives did back in the mid 1900′s.
Hey… that’s not “fun”. YOU LIED TO ME! D:
Isn’t it all relative?
you go far enough back i think most of us are
Trying to engage in logical debate with histrionic, hyper-emotional, narcissistic liberals is like pissing in the wind. Just shoot them instead.
Pissing in the wind gives a wonderful sense of freedom.
Avoid pissing against it though.
AH, cgray is someone who doesn’t agree with the Constituion. I bet you think that you’re an American? Think again, you’re not.
I like how he used histrionic in conjunction with his comments of “pissing in the wind” and with a conclusion of “Just shoot them instead”
How about we shoot the arrogant, ignorant, murderous death cultists, such as yourself, who believe that a fairy tale written in a book gives them the right to oppress and kill others while forcing your fairy tale on others?
What is really funny is you can’t even live up to your own values, or did you forget your religion’s admonitions to humility and to turn the other cheek?
That is right you are a hypocrite because you want to force a religion on others that you, yourself do not practice.
Nope, no histrionics, hyper-emotionalism, or narcissism here.
Yeah, I think we can all agree that Dave is a jackass.
That’s an insult to donkeys, mate.
But cgray isn’t a jackass for that revoltingly childish comment above? Your double-standards decieve your own latent jackassness.
I didn’t say that. cgray has proven to be a jackass several times over. I’m in a precarious position here being both liberal and Christian. Pretty much no matter what I say I’m gonna piss someone off.
I, for one, am pissed that you’re in a precarious situation, being that I am anti-precarious!
*FROTH FOAM AND WHIPPED CREAM*
I’m anti-whipped cream, and find you offensive!!!!!
I find your offensivity offensive! And by being offended I offend myself!
I’m defensive of your offensive offendedness! The best defense is a good offense! I’m on the fence about your offense!
I’m offended by your defensive stance on offendedness, and challenge you to a fencing tournament!
I’m offended by your *fuse blows, brain catches fire* duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh…
*grabs the brain fire extinguisher*
Here, it’s a copy of twilight! It’ll shut off the oxygen to your brain and make the fire go out!
That didn’t work. I just set the book on fire. Which isn’t really a bad thing.
Ah, I wasn’t aware that this was common knowledge.
Well, not entirely common as cgray isn’t a regular poster, but when s/he does, it’s never a pretty sight.
Oh it’s pretty alright…. Pretty stupid! Dur hur hur hur!
Oh, so you are an idiot twice over. Good to know.
Wow, someone is looking for a fight. You’re cute when you’re angry.
eye for an eye? He does unto others as he has had done unto him no doubt. Its no excuse, but perhaps he deserves pity more than hate. Perhaps you could turn the other cheek?
First, this guy didn’t claim to be a Christian, did he?
Second, if he did, humility’s a definite, but “turn the other cheek” refers to an insult (a slap in the face), not taking repeated physical punishment. Still, on this website, you run out of cheeks to turn (to receive another insult) REAL FAST if you’re a Christian.
Well, there’s been some mention of Jefferson’s letter, not much context, morons stating that “separation of church and state” is a LIBRUL idea, etc., so here goes:
Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction – his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical truths as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson’s draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson’s spelling and punctuation.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
whats this? facts and evidence? in a debate on religion? HOW DARE YOU!
I’m such a scamp. Meanwhile, you’ll notice that my post has no takers. C’est la vie, said the cheese-eating surrender monkey.
@ Religionisdumb…again
Just in case you missed it above, I’m sorry for my first comment on your post. I misunderstood.
P.S. PLEASE DON’T THINK I’M THAT MUCH OF AN ASS!
The truth is many of the founding fathers were deeply religious. However they specificly avoided the use of the word “God” in the constitution and amendments so that people like YOU wouldn’t it the way you used it in that letter just now. They felt religion was important, so what?! Opinions are not meant to be found decades later to undermine a reasonable viewpoint.
“The truth is many of the founding fathers were deeply religious.”
So? They were also people enamored of the Enlightenment, out of which the Constitution grew.
“However they specificly avoided the use of the word “God” in the constitution and amendments so that people like YOU wouldn’t it the way you used it in that letter just now.”
I don’t get this. How DID I use that letter just now?
“They felt religion was important, so what?!”
Right. IF they did, then so what indeed. The Constitution is a secular document, it was flawed as originally written, it has had to be amended many times to address its flaws, and so on. Again, what has religion to do with it?
“Opinions are not meant to be found decades later to undermine a reasonable viewpoint.”
What does this even mean? Okay, opinions don’t undermine reasonably arrived at viewpoints, but facts do. The fact is that, according to our Constitution, laws in the United States are to made without regard to the religious feelings of the law makers.
Maybe we agree, but I am still not sure what your point was.
I apologize…i misunderstood. I didn’t feel like reading the whole letter and I didn’t realize you were being sarcastic…
SORRY :*(
Anyone read all that? Show of hands? Didn’t think so…
I did.
Danbala you’re supposed to show your hand so he can stamp it. If you don’t have a stamp their not going to let you back in!
*they’re
noticed it RIGHT AFTER hitting add comment.
Oh, I ain’t leavin…
sorry
I write a lot when I get excited about a subject.
I read it. I don’t like your name, but I like most of your points.
So many different kinds of crazy.
a one line insult? cmon..you can do better..come up with another one of your inane arguments that have nothing to do with what I was talking about.
A) The concept of ‘Seperation of Church and State’ was put forth originally by Thomas Jefferson in a completely seperate letter, and is not in the Constitution
B) The concept of ‘Seperation of Church and State’ is based on the first amendment, which WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
It was added several years later with the Bill of Rights.
The picture is innacurate.
C) The idea that “any idiot will understand it” is stupid because the question of just how separate the two entities should be is a source of constant contention for the smartest minds in the nation. SO many questions could arise.
I wish I could retroactively UNvote for this LOL and slap the person who made it.
If we’re referring to this part
“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.”
Apparently this says that a town hall can’t have a damn Christmas tree or something like that…
OK, hon. You find yourself one of the very few Christians in a town like Detroit, which has a huge number of Muslims, or Miami, with all its Jews.
And hey, it’s Ramadan right now and Rosh Hashanah starts on Friday night. Let’s put a picture of the crescent moon rising over Mekkah up to appease our Muslim citizens and an apple & honey display to appease our Jewish citizens. Oh, and will the Christians mind that we seem to be promoting these two religions right in front of them? Well, who cares, because in this town they are the minority, and the majority rules.
Now, how do you, as a Christian, feel about that?
Put your Christian religious symbols on your own Christian home and I will celebrate Perihelion in my atheist home, and neither of our tax dollars will go to support religious symbolism in the public square. What is so freaking hard to understand about that?
Actually Christmas tree is not a religious symbol, and is pre-christian solstice practice of keeping something green in the house to make sure spring comes again. Even in the communist countries there were public Christmas trees. Naturally Jesus was not mentioned.
And I would be all for celebrating hanuka and ramadan and solstice and every other kind of holiday. I think it would be much better if we learned about each other, and agree to disagree on religion and let everyone believe and celebrate their beliefs, instead of being offended and hurt by other people’s religious practices.
Well, SR, I don’t think it makes to interpret TB’s “tax dollars” as an expression of being “offended and hurt.” No, I don’t want to pay for the baby Jesus and his props, thanks. I want to pay for things that are needed, by us all.
*makes sense
Wait, so you’re getting upset by a $40 tree? Tell you what, if you want the IRS to refund your $40 / 300,000,000 (what’s that, a 100-thousandth of a cent or something?), why don’t you write them a letter? Oh wait, that’d probably take up at least 57 cents of the IRS’s time, and I’d want my $0.57 / 299,999,999 back because I want our politicians and government officials to feel like they’re allowed to have lives and beliefs.
That would have been great if separation of church and state were in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state was never in any articles of the founding fathers, other than a personal letter. However, article 3 of the Northwestern Ordinance states:
Article 3.
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
HAHAHA!! that’s a good one! It’s just AMAZING how ALL of that is utter crock! Morality and religion are actually the primairy causes of humanity’s most pressing problems. “Morality” prevents the UN from using the necessary force to stop genocides in Africa. Religion has caused plenty of wars in the short time we humans have populated the Earth and continues to cause death and suffering today. “Morality” causes intense religious persecution in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia in attempt to promote what is “right.” Religion is the bane of progress, crushing logic and science with superstition and “faith.” The Indians were forced off their lands without compensation. They were stripped of their rights and any possessions they couldn’t carry and forced to march to their designated reservations under a sort of martial law. I swear, it’s like that document was written as a joke!!!
… Morality by definition is what makes the genocides in Africa wrong in the first place.
… and religion hasn’t caused quite as many wars as people screaming at others about how stupid they are, and things like “Your document is a joke.” And do you not see your own hypocrisy when you say thing like “Religion is the bane of progress, so we should get rid of it?” Don’t you think that’s extremely similar to what the Africans are saying to support their ethnic cleansing? Or what the Crusaders said about those who didn’t agree with their beliefs?
It’s time to get off your soap box long enough to realize you were standing on a pile of crap while everyone you yelled at snickered at you.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. So many people believe that “good” and “bad” are real. They’re not, they’re just fabrications of humanity’s false sense of morality. Every event is neutral, sure war causes death, but wars aren’t gonna end anytime soon, so when people do survive they are possess genetics that in the future will keep more people alive. It’s all relative. I’m by no means rationalizing these wars, I hate them as much as anyone; but I hate out of reason, not because a book says they’re arbitrarily “wrong” or “bad.” I judge events in the world based on the principle of logical justice. Those being killed have done nothing to warrant their deaths in any logical way, so I disapprove. Basically, in my mind, equal and unequal equate to justice and injustice respectively. Logic dictates that nothing has real significance anyways, so to me the idea that anything is “good” or “bad” at its very essence is just ignorant.
P.S. Most of the genocide in Africa can be traced to ancient tribal conflicts based on slight religious differences, and the UN won’t use military force to end it because it views violence as “wrong.” Before you call someone a hypocrite because you disagree with their views, please do your research.
P.P.S. I don’t really care if anyone praises me or ridicules me, hell, I don’t even really care if anyone rewards me or kills me for my views. I have no sense of guilt, I cannot be influenced to change my mind unless I’m presented with facts.
Separation of church and state was NEVER something George Washington said. Whoever made this lol is an idiot. The idiot in question 200 years from now, would be the person who thinks “Separation of Church and State” is in the constitution of the USA.
You’re completely missing the joke here, or maybe you just don’t like what it’s saying so you’re attacking it factually. Regardless, all this was covered earlier…
P.S. George Washington frequently warned of the dangers of party politics AND the involvement of religion in politics in his speaches. I guarentee he would be disgusted if he saw what America has become. Sadly it’s still the best country to live in in the world…
*purrs*
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” –Thomas Jefferson, from his “Notes on Virginia”
I know I will get blasted for this, but I gotta say what I believe. The practice of religion is not in its self a “bad” thing. However, religion at large is dangerous because the ideas it presents are dangerous to the civility of a society. Religions are free of all logic, being founded on faith, and as such they tend to disconnect people from reality. Religious beliefs are “strong” ideas, meaning they are nearly impossible to change once ingrained in an individual’s psyche, and will begin to eliminate other ideas that are present in the individual’s mind via subcouncious editing. This happens to various degrees depending on the religion and subject. This is not necessarily dangerous, but it holds great potential for danger. Sometimes these “strong” ideas corrupt the individual’s thoughts and lead to a rejection of the world around them. They are no longer capable of understanding any other ideas but their own, and believe a vast majority of people are exactly like them; and when they begin to realize this is not he case they can become extremely aggressive. An individual in this state of mind begins to see themselves as a sort of “valiant crusader” of sorts, and can be capable of nearly anything, as evidenced by religious terrorism in the middle east and Ireland. Religions also tend to attract people with “weak personalities”, easily influenced by the few others with “strong personalities.” With this combination, we end up with extremists and cultists. Groups such as this tend to be run by highly persuasive people and are a magnet for those with weak personalities. This can lead these relatively small groups to become highly persuasive in politics, and some even engage in aggressive recruiting and indoctrination behaviours. This in turn results in a few relatively small groups of people with no ties to reality having a disproportionate level of influence in the workings and events of the real world around them. The end results take the form of oppressive governments (Saudi Arabia), terrorist organizations (Al Qaida), dangerous cults, and a variety of other organizations not directly related to religion. Overall, religion is bad if you want a civil society because its ideas and their nature are dangerously infectious; I’ve actually seen anthropological reports on human behaviour that suggest strong religious ideas spread among people almost like an infectious disease though contact and direct interaction, whereas most ideas spread slowly and indirectly, like though the media. I know any idea can be taken too far and probably will, but religion is especially dangerous in this respect out of the very nature of its ideology. The only way I see we could ever achieve a truly civil society is through the absolute removal of the ideologies of religion, social class, and racism from all aspects of human society worldwide.
P.S. When i say “civil society”, I mean a just society in which all members derive the same amount of happiness and manage to live in relative comfort while retaining most personal freedoms.
Go to dictionary.com. Look up religion. By definition atheism is a religion. Your problem isn’t with religion, it’s with the human race. Your problem isn’t the religion is illogical, it’s that people are illogical (which is why you ranted about religion (again) without realizing you subscribe to one–just one that doesn’t have a name or a symbol to go with it yet).
Know what else “spreads among people like an infectious disease?” Knowledge. You know, the thing you purport that religion hates.
But in case you’re still wanting to go ahead with your idea, here’s how you go about the “absolute removals”
“ideologies of religion”: You’ve got a big task here, buddy. Most religions have some ideology regarding something like respecting your fellow man, or helping others out, and so forth. So what you need to do is find everyone who’s ever helped someone out and kill them.
“social class”: If by chance there’s anyone left after you do the above, you’ll need to knock out the idea of social class. Obviously step one is to give everyone an identical wage and identical housing and so forth. Now, you can’t let them actually SPEND their wage because one item might become worth more than another, and then someone would be richer than the other and become the high class. So what you really ought to do strip everyone of everything they have and put them all in a hole. But then people who were born bigger or stronger or prettier than the others would probably become the high class. Better just kill them all.
“racism”: This one’s easy. You kill everyone except a man and a woman (congratulations–you just got rid of sexism, too, but make sure neither of them are liberals, because they’ll be mad that you didn’t give them the option of magically procreating homosexually). If you leave two white men and two white women, they’re still different races by some measure. Anyway this pair must reproduce exactly one boy and one girl (kill any duplicates). If you get more than one pair, they’re liable to move away from each other and develop different skin pigmentation or weather tolerances. Can’t have that. Kill the parents once the children can reproduce.
Now you just need to finish your civil society (if there is one left) by making sure they “derive the same amount of happiness.” But I don’t even have any suggestions for you on that one.
… Wait, yes I do. The only way to make sure one isn’t happier than another is to make them both 100% miserable. But even that probably can’t be quantified. There is one guaranteed method, though: Kill them all.
Eso, do you even think before saying something? Of course I know people are illogical, of course my problem is with people and not religion, I’m a MISANTHROPE! At it’s core, religions are really about unifying people and promoting justice, but obviously you didn’t understand what I was saying. As you said, humans are illogical, what you don’t see is that humans are also, for the most part, pretty dumb and lazy. Why come up with their own views from experience and risk having an unpopular mindset when you can be told what to think by someone else with ideas that are accepted by almost everyone without having to do a DAMN THING? I already explained above that most religions incorporate ideas that all humans possess on a genetic level. Knowledge DOESN’T spread BECAUSE of religion! Religion tells people to ignore all reason, all logic, and any doubts they may have about them being absolutely right about everything. Religion inevitably leads to these lazy morons having a huge amount of influence in a world they are completely oblivious to. And now that I got you mad, it’s pretty obvious to me that you’re as much of a misanthrope as I am deep down. I never suggested ANY of the violent, unjust ideas that you proposed! You read what I wrote and put your sick view of the world to work in an attempt to out-reason me. What you revealed is your own latent hatreds any irrationality that you claim your own religion looks down upon. Does it make you feel good, I wonder, to talk down to people, to insult all who would have the courage to state their own views? Do you really think that equal happiness can only mean equal money, because I know people who barely make enough in a month to sustain themselves when everyone works full-time who are happier than some people who i know are independently wealthy. Does fairness really translate to socialism for you? Do you really think that racism cannot be against whites, or do you think everyone with light skin is born a flaming racist prick; because if you do you’re a racist yourself for making such a generalization. You demean homosexuals for no clear reason, yet you claim to be logical? You mock my opposition to the social class system, do you actually revile equality that much. Oh, I know, maybe you just feel you’re too perfect for logic. Of course, logic is for the worthless working class because their lack of adequate pay, which is imposed by those who support the social class system like YOU, makes them inferior to such kind and understanding people like YOU; who merely allows them to live their obviously trivial lives to have the pleasure of being stepped on by you on a daily basis! How kind of you to grace us ALL with your OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR judgment which you have no need to change ever because it’s clearly BETTER THAN LOGIC! You claim to defend religion, but all you do is exemplify all that’s wrong with it. I feel better now.
\
P.S. I love how you just automatically assume I’m a Democrat, when I never stated anything that suggests that. I know you said liberal, but you meant Democrat, which by the way I am not. The word liberal simply means someone who is UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS, I could see how someone like you could resent that.
Yeah, real easy, so quit making laws that F with my church! It goes both ways people.
What laws… pray tell F with your church?
Oh like the laws that say churches can enjoy the protection of the government (police, fire, roads, snowplows) but not have to pay for it? Like those, huh?
MY CHURCH IS FREE TO BURN DOWN AND BE ROBBED IF IT WANTS TO BE DAMMIT!
We’ll stop passing laws that F!@# with your church when you stop passing laws that F#$% with everyones’ lives.
But your church enjoys it!
and it was wearing a short skirt. It was asking for it.
It kept saying no, but we kept hearing yes.
hahahahahaha separation of church and state from the founding fathers? hahahahahahahaha whoever oked this needs a history lesson. try reading the Constitution some time. there’s separation of church FROM state, but that’s hella different
If it’s set up to protect a church from a state, then the state giving any one religion special treatment, doesn’t that mean the other churches aren’t being protected from the state?
Hence the concept of separation of Church and State.
Uh, take your own advice. There is nothing in the constitution about a separation of anything, that’s the point of the entire debate.
Right? Right? Why are you laughing?
P.S. I’m pretty sure there aren’t any laws specifically for churches. If so, they don’t enforce them anyway.
Jefferson had the kind of religion liberals might have if conservatives hadn’t spent the last 30 years tainting the concept.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not occur once in the entire constitution…blegh. Idiotic post-modernists!
You know what’s idiotic? Posting an idea that has been posted…. re-posted…. hashed… then re-hashed, debated, and re-debated… and then acting as if your comment wasn’t old news…..
Neither does the word God, nor the words Jesus Christ, nor Christian Nation, nor Judeo-Christian tradition, nor tax-exempt status.
Nor “internet,” so you can’t have that either, Charlie. Sorry.
Ok, Al… disinvent it would you?
Fail. Hint: Before composing LOL about the constitution, read constitution first.
But it’s LONG!!!
Yeah, I don’t have that kind of time or attention span.
Well in that case don’t get on to the politicians that didn’t get to go to Ron Paul’s party either. If you’re too busy you know they are.
If the politicians have an attention span like mine, we’re all screwed.
I disagree.
How about laws that would make it a hate crime for a preacher to say homosexuality is wrong? Laws that say my kids HAVE to be taught evolution but teaching my faith is forcing my religion down someones throat? Laws that say my kids can and in some cases should be given free birth control without telling me and without my consent? I have a right to vote on anything brought to a ballot. If people vote in things I don’t like, that’s democracy. But when politicians do it, that is unacceptable.
What are you talking about?
He’s saying that he walks around keeping his religion to himself, and all he gets for it is someone’s else’s opinions forced on him everyday.
Oh. Well, that’s life then. :-\
1) That’s not a law… ANYWHERE. It’s a hate crime for you pastor to be inciting malicious conduct towards homosexuals. And well you know, that Jesus guy and his dad did say it’s not YOUR job to pass judgement, but theirs.
2) Evolution is a scientific law. It’s part of the curriculum across the board. Teaching your faith is not teaching science, when you can prove everything the bible says through scientific law, then you can teach it in school. And just so you know, many schools do have religion courses as electives in school because religion itself is elective not mandantory.
3) The condom legislation is in the better interest of people’s health. Because sex can spread STDs. If you want to instruct your children not to get them or to throw them away if they are given because they’re supposed to abstain from sex, that’s your business. And if your children get them from the school without your consent that sounds more like an issue between your children and you.
4) You vote on your politicians, if they do something you don’t like, you get your chance to fire them if enough people agree with you.
5) Stop acting like you’re a victim, because you’re not. What you’re advocating is wrong can make MANY more victims of infractions of liberty than you obviously tried to comprehend.
Period.
I hate to say this, but evolution is technically a theory due to it’s nature. It has the same sort of status as a scientific law, but it’s not universal because it only applies to living organisms. Laws are universal, like the law of gravity which is ironically incorrect, but it works well enough so we use it anyways. If it was the “law of evolution” then rocks and electrons would change over time too as a result of environmental pressure, obviously they don’t.
Most schools don’t teach macro evolution anymore. Being for the reasons you stated. A lot of schools have a contemporary curriculum which states macro evolution as a theory, just as you said. But Micro-Evolution is proven, does exist, and is still taught in school, in-depth in classrooms. Very few christian fundamentalists think of micro evolution when the word is mentioned. Most think of the Big Bang Theory, which I myself, feel is a load of bull… everything from nothing violates the laws of matter, but I digress. I’m just saying Evolution is a scientifically accepted theory and that’s why it is taught. Religion on the other hand is a theology, not a science, which is why it’s not required to be taught in school. And why, to do so, would be cramming religion down people’s throats.
Even as a christian I’ll concede the evolution thing.
When an atheist talks about all the big bang theories, and STILL tell me they are the rational one’s I just laugh. Look I love science, but just because a “scientist” with an agenda tells me something does not automatically mean it’s true. Accepting something without having any proof yourself, sounds just like my “faith” that is apparently silly to them.
I don’t classify atheism as a religion, but some people’s devotion to UNPROVABLE science certainly is in my book.
As humans we can never “prove” anything. Our perceptions are inherently flawed and imperfect. Besides, the scientific explanation of the universe’s formation makes more sense than the “magic man in the sky made everything because he felt like it” explanation
two comments
1) I am a physicist, and *I* don’t believe in the big bang. No real scientist *believes* in anything. There are some things which we will assume are true until proven otherwise, like the Law of Gravity, but we only make that assumption because we have tested the predictions these theories make time and time again and they are consistently correct. With religion, there are no testable predictions. There is no way to disprove the idea. Thus, it isn’t really a reasonable idea to propose. It is the ultimate cop-out for the questions that plague humanity. Any idea that makes even one testable prediction makes “more sense” to believe in than a religion because that idea has at least passed one test. I won’t trust a prediction until it has been correct on many many tests, so I certainly won’t trust an idea that hasn’t been correct on ANY tests.
2) You are right that no idea can be proven. It is completely impossible. But, you can DISPROVE an idea. And it is only the disprovable ideas that have ever advanced mankind’s understanding of the world in any way. We keep trying to disprove them, but they keep turning out right, so we start to think they might be correct and we then determine the consequences of that being true and this gives us new ways to test our hypotheses. Oh, and on evolution, we can’t prove it is true, but the theory does make certain predictions that are testable. Many of these predictions are somewhat vague though, because the idea of evolution is an inherently random process of genetic mutation. Thus, it is extremely difficult to make rigorous tests of it. Hence, the skepticism. However, evolution does have some tests and make some predictions, and it has passed all of them, so it is infinitely more believable than the “god” theory which makes 0 testable predictions.
Perhaps, RID, the scientific method/empirical approach is not always best suited to “test” spiritual matters.
I’m not saying you do, I’m making my point that I believe somewhat shaky science over religious fervor.
I know what you’re saying. I’m just saying proof-wise we’re on equal footing. You believe the shaky science, that’s cool. I tend to avoid my religion’s creation theories, but it does tend to leave me sitting there saying, “Duuuuh, I dunno” when the subject comes up.
I respect that you can acknowledge that just because I have no more reason to believe an alternative to your view doesn’t make either of us a hypocrite. I must say, you really are a great example of what christianity really teaches.
Oops, i mean tries to teach. You exemplify the core values that started it, not the hate that people added later.
P.S. I’m not being sarcastic
The big bang theory is complicated. It has something to do with neutrinos and antimatter in the beginning. Basically there are subatomic particles that make up electrons and protons, or something like those, that are always flashing into existence spontaneously along with their anti-matter counterparts. Usually they exist only for a tiny fraction of a second before colliding again and vanishing, but occasionally gravitational fields mess with their behaviour and they fail to collide. This has all been proven because it’s what causes black-hole radiation. Since neutrinos have mass, it is conceivable that given in infinite amount of time some of these particles could flash into existence near each other in a fashion that would prevent them from colliding with their anti-neutrinos. Given enough time these events could repeat infinitely untill they all attract each other into an ultradense black-hole that over time would possibly reach critical mass and explode violently, leading to the big bang. I believe that’s the current theory, and it seems plausible to me, but I’m not entirely sure and even today physicists and astronomers debate the specifics. It does account for the regions of space filled with “dark-matter.”
Neutrinos? Antimatter? Hell, it all sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. This is more plausible than God?
We’ve actually seen them in black-hole radiation. So yes, it is more plausible than a “God.”
I never took physics or any of that stuff, so this is all a foreign language to me. And I think it still sounds like something out of Star Trek.
everyone knows star trek is a lie…>LIES<
So maybe you should learn physics before you starting calling it a religion and questioning its plausibility? Until you understand something, can you really critique it? Perhaps you can just trust me when I tell you that, like all science, the big bang theory makes predictions, and those predictions have been shown correct through observations. So, by virtue of being both disprovable and not yet disproven despite numerous tests, it is infinitely more plausible than God. This is why I call myself an atheist. The god theory is utterly implausible. The big bang theory isn’t very well tested yet. It is still being tested. But even one test is infinitely better than zero. I can’t rule out the possibility of the god theory being correct, but I consider any other theory that is disprovable and not yet disproven to be infinitely better, so that makes the probability of the god theory being correct virtually zero.
Perhaps you should learn more about my religion before you start questioning its plausibility. Hmmmmmm? Perhaps you are letting your view of religion cloud your judgment.
No we haven’t
Yes we have. Unless you’ve never heard of Stephen Hawking’s work. I suppose that he’s famous for discovering things we have, according to you, never observed. Please do your research before declaring what I say wrong. I extend everyone else here that courtesy, you should at least do it for me. Or don’t. I don’t really care. It’ll just give me a reason to criticize you more if you choose not too.
No we haven’t. I just bought a book about how a team of scientists have spent years trying to get Hawkings to admit that most of his theories violate the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from just assuming he is the end all of science. I guess the problem is that Hawkings got famous, but people forgot to actually find out what he did.
When you get down to nuclear physics, matter doesn’t play by the same rules as newtonian physics. Hawking’s work deals with some of the most minute and unstable particles of matter we know of. They’re not the same as a rock or a ball.
‘Laws’ are our approximations based on observable phenomena. Therefore the law obeys the phenomenon and not the other way round. So there is no ‘law of evolution’. However evolution been observed to happen even during recorded history so there’s no doubt that it exists as a phenomenon, even if you ignore the mass of historical evidence. We’re still waiting for any comparable proof that God exists.
No, more like evolution is a theory because it’s a guiding principle, not an absolute.
If I drop a rock, it falls. I cannot, in a gravity well, drop a rock and have it not fall. I can therefore predict, with the Law of Gravity, that any object will fall when dropped, and can even posit how fast it will fall based on the mass of the object causing the gravity well.
I can show how organisms change over time. I can demonstrate the reasons–everything from natural selection to mutation to viral editing of genes to jumping genes–but I cannot predict how a particular organism will evolve, only that it will. If I take half of a population of organisms and separate them from the other half, I know that given enough time, the two will evolve into different species, as did Darwin’s birds, as did the chimpanzees and bonobos, but what those new species will look like I cannot predict.
This is why evolution is not a law.
P.S. A rock and an electron are not living organisms.
You can not predict how an organism will evolve over time, but you can predict that one will be able to find fossils of previous organisms from which the current ones have evolved. And, guess what, that has been done.
So, the Theory of Evolution, much like the Theory of Gravity, has made predictions and those predictions have been proven.
Perhaps you should go learn the Scientific Method and read a few books on science and evolution.
Were you there? Can you prove anything that happened in the past? None of us were there. Nobody really knows how we got here. All we have are guesses. How did the dinosaurs die? Nobody knows for sure. All we have are guesses.
Well consider the guess: The dinosaurs got killed by global warming. What would the consequences of this be? Well, we would expect to find that the ocean floor was farther inland during that time period. In order to have it be hot enough to kill off plant and animal life, we would need the ocean line to move all the way to where exactly? We can calculate that based on the amount of water in the polar ice caps and how their size varies with Global temperature. What would have caused the global warming? Perhaps and over-abundance of animal life with insufficient supporting foliage such that CO2 levels rise and global temperatures rise. Do we see such over-abundance in the fossil record? Etc. Etc. You figure out what the consequences are, and you go see if those consequences are true.
Another idea: maybe an asteroid hit the earth: well, this one should be easy, do we see any asteroid impacts large enough to throw enough dirt in the air to block out the sun long enough to kill plant life (and shortly thereafter, animal life)? Are they geologically dated correctly to coincide with the time period?
Sure you can’t prove 100% ANYTHING, but what happened in the past is studied the same way as the present. You consider a possibility. You consider its consequences. And you determine if those consequences are true. If they aren’t your idea is no good. Start over. If they are, test some more consequences. You keep testing until the probability that your theory is wrong but just *happens* to predict so many of the consequences correctly becomes impossibly low. Then you say you have a theory. It may not be perfect, but the core of the idea seems solid because it would be just an improbable coincidence for the wrong idea to make all the right predictions THAT many times in a row. To become a Law, a theory really needs to just be so well understood by so many people and the predictions so numerous and so varied that the scientific community thinks it is a “complete” theory. However, even a law sometimes ends up needing tweaking later. Now, people use theory too much when they should say hypotheses. String theory, for example, is not a theory. It is a hypotheses. The big bang theory is a “young” theory. The theory of relativity will probably become the Law of relativity in my life time. The theory of evolution is a “weak” theory because, while it has been tested, it is difficult to predict the result of a random process.
Anyway, I just think you are saying Nobody knows, and throwing up your hands and giving up. That bothers me immensely. We can’t ever know 100%…but we can be 99.99999999999% sure..and that 99.99999999999% can be really useful for doing things like making car engines or airplanes. Figuring out something to 99.9999999999% is how progress happens. It is, in fact, the ONLY way that progress happens.
*sigh* I’m sorry. I can’t read anymore walls of text. It’s hurting my eyes. I’ll tap out.
*Applauds*
Common sense WIN.
Have you seen all the revisions to the evolutionary tree. It’s not minor changes here and there. Every revision is EXTREME, and every person who makes the revision claims that they know what they are talking about. I am personally okay with your faith though.
Ah, thank you very much for clearing that up for me. I’m a little rusty on some of my scientific definitions.
Wait what?!? Someone proved evolution?! Where was the mass media frenzy? Where are the cameras and news stories? Oh wait, no they didn’t prove it. That’s why it is still a theaory.
theory*
(The text box didn’t show all of what I was typing.)
Over 500 comments… is this stuff really considered controversial? How about OBVIOUS?
Fun fact: (any topic)+religion =controversy!
I think the problem is that humor does not cross the liberal-conservative boundary at all. What one side finds funny, the other finds offensive. Also some people just won’t let the fact the picture isn’t exactly correct.
Humor can easily cross political lines, as long as it’s not an idiot with an agenda who clearly has no idea what they are talking about.
Well 75% of the population is pretty dumb, so I guess we’re both right
And the other 25% is out making up statics…
or statistics. One requires rubbing socks together….
Not at all. IQ follows the law of averages, as it is a synthetic measurement. 50% have the average, 25% are above and below. Therefore 75% of the population have an IQ of 100 or lower. To put this in perspective, a person with an IQ of 100 has trouble learning polynomial algebra. Thats a little dumb in my book…
No, that’s AVERAGE in the actual book. Even if you’re more intelligent then that it’s still average.
I know, but from what I’ve seen throughout my entire life so far is that, compared to the level of intelligence that is necessary to fully comprehend the issues in our universe, an average person is more than a little slow. Nothing wrong with that, we just need to keep in mind most people may not really see the whole truth.
This caption is a fail because “separation of church” and state was not written anywhere in the constitution
Win
Please stop stating the obvious, half of the posts are exactly like yours
LAST!!!!
(any after this simply party crashers trying to horn in on my fame)
Actually… if anyone would bother to read up on the founding fathers, or the founding documents… the separation of church and state was no where to be found in any of the documents, or the founding fathers thought process… i mean… when most of them held the opinion that to even be fit to run the country (and Benjamin Franklin I think it was went so far as to say “be called patriotic”) one must be a bible following christian… I think this caption… if studied in depth, not great depth… just… well… maybe 3 feet into the biography section of a library… would be found erroneous, and irrelevant, and… just plain wrong. if anyone has any caring for facts… just throwin it out there… this would do better on failblog… not news.
ZOMG that’s a totally original thought!!!!
Or not. Redundancy slows down my web browser. Cut it out.
The only problem with your statement is that MOST OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE DEISTS, NOT CHRISTIANS you lying sack of crap.
Fu(k, I read that as “most of the founding fathers were dentists” for some reason and it cracked me up completely. “Put something in there about the right to floss…”
I have a right to floss, but I choose not to invoke it.
furthermore, the separation of church and state was in Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts at least. He expressed in his letter to the danbury baptists. Try reading a bit David, then maybe you won’t get slain on the message boards.
So yes, we have “caring for facts” thats why we have to correct all your errant ones.
Okay, the Separation of Church and State is…
In a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Not in our constitution.
Get a brain, retards.
We have covered this numerous times on this page already, please learn to read.
it’s been said but I just can’t help it- whoever made this lol is a dumbass.
Too bad that dumbass has a public education.
Of course, I have a public education too, but I actually somehow managed to lears some stuff.
Murphy’s karma in action!
Actually I went to private high school, and now am working on my masters in IT. And I am doing so well with my education that can spell “learn” when I’m insulting people.
And as I wrote under comments before this LOL got on the main page, separation of church and state is in the first amendment, also it was a topic on which most of those men who were both religious and respectful of other faiths agreed. So I did not think it was much of a stretch.
Oh and in the end, it was a LOL, not a history paper, learn the difference.
You do realize that the only reason that private schools test higher nationally is that there are no laws forbidding the instructors from giving students the answers to government tests, right. I’ve had a public education, and from what I can tell it actually seems to be superior to most private education. The only real difference is that private schools act as pockets of homogenous ideology, usually religious or elitist, and the teachers are paid according to their students grades. It’s hard not to pass through a private school with flying colours unless you’re the wrong ethnicity or don’t live in an “upper-class” neighborhood. I’ve done my research too, most private school graduates drop out of college within the first two years.
You know, I think a lot of the debate about whether or not our country is a “Christian nation”/founded on the Christian faith could end if people differentiated from the Christian religion (and the practices thereof) and Judeo-Christian ethics. You can base something on the ethics of a faith without actually basing it on the religion. (Religion and faith aren’t the same thing either, but I’ll leave that alone)
For those stating the constitution doesn’t separate church and here you go. “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.” -1st amendment, US constitution
*and state.. typing fail
I just think if our founding father realized how much of a idiot our current congress and how madly insane our Christian tried to push laws. I think they would have written, ” Church and state must not even be related.”
Thank you about all the comments, especially the hate, I found it hilarious.
No, it is not in the constitution, LOL wasn’t intended to be taken that literally. It is in first amendment as a fact and by name in letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. You can read entire letter here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
This LOL was intended as a jab to people who think their own religious views should be laws for everyone to follow, be they Christian, Islamic or Scientologists.
Isn’t hate a wonderful thing?
I’d just like to point out this little bit:
“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.”… is from the Bill of Rights, aka the First AMENDMENT. If it’s an AMENDMENT, then it’s amending the original document, so in fact, IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
The Amendment was not meant to keep God out of Government, it was to make sure that the government did create its own religion aka the church of England, 39 of the 56 signers went to seminary and many were preachers, men such as George Washington, Ben Rush, and especially John Adams believed that their faith in God was the foundation of their political views.
Never the less, the First clearly says “The state shall not establish a religion”, that is that the state shall not make a church part of the mechanism of government.
It does not say or mean that members of the government shall not follow or be guided by religious beliefs, but that no-one shall be elevated to the legislature purely because they are a member of a church, rather than because they won a seat by way of an election.
Funny, 39 of those men went to seminary, Benjamin Rush thought that the only book that should be taught in school was the Bible, and George Washington said that a man was not a patriot unless he stood for the pillars of America: Morality and Christianity. Know your facts. People who stand for political views without knowledge of history are fools and the reason for the derogation of America
And it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote this to the Danbury church: “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.”
Know your facts. People who stand for political views without knowing the context of the phrase aren’t helping matters any.
Citations please…
That’s great now please show me where in the Constitution it is. Idiot. Read the Document first.
No, it was in Jefferson’s letter to Danbury Church. Might want to mention that. Idiot. Read your history first.
I am not sure if this is funny because
1. people don’t understand what it means now
2. because the author thinks it in the Constitution
Maybe this should be in FAILblog…
In my country it is in the Constitution, and still catholic priests are paid by the state.
Yep a touchy one. And yes it is misunderstood. It does not say ther ecan never be any mention of God in the government. It says only that no laws can be made establishing a state faith or banning any religion. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are if people would quit throwing God out.
NO!
It says that the govt. can make no law “respecting an establishment of religion”
The word “respecting” has only one definition “regarding; concerning”
Establishment COULD be read to mean “establishing a state religion”, but that simply isn’t the case. “establishment of religion” is the direct object of the sentence and it is a noun. An establishment of religion is a church, synogogue or even a religious group that doesn’t have an actual church to worship in.
The sentence should be read, in modern english.
Congress shall make no law regarding or concerning a religious group of any kind, or prohibiting the free exercise of said religious group.
How does this mean separation of church and state? Well, lets say the govt. wants to put “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Well, first, congress has to pass a law in order to change the pledge of allegiance but whoops, God is kind of a religious icon, so it seems this law concerns a religious group. Damn, I guess the commies will win after all. Can we stick the ten commandments up on public buildings? Well, does it concern a religious group? Inevitably, the answer must be yes because they get free promotion of their commandments on government’s dime. So yes, it does concern them…it is good for them, but it still concerns them.
So when doesn’t a law concern a religious group? Well, consider the tax-exempt status of churches. Congress had to pass a law to make churches tax-exempt it seems, but really, they didn’t. They made a law allowing non-profit groups to get tax-exempt status. Since churches are (ostensibly) non-profit groups, they can enjoy the same tax-exempt status as any other non-profit group. No law was passed concerning them..only concerning non-profit groups as a whole..of which churches are only one subset.
PS…we are in the mess we are in now because religion is trying to use govt. to promote its beliefs. This has two consequences. 1) religion becomes a political issue, and the people HATE politics…so they leave the faith 2) politics and religion mixed to create wedge issues that do nothing but breed political hatred across party lines meaning that no meaningful legislation can get passed because both sides are too busy trying to defeat the other side in the next election to get anything done. It isn’t throwing out God that is making the world suck. It is throwing God IN to politics that makes the world suck.
Well said. I especially liked your use of modern English to clarify the 1st amendment. I have agreed with your position for quite some time, but you said it very well. This process can be seen in glaring obviousness in the government of Utah. Having family that lived there for quite some time, I can tell how incredibly intertwined the Jesus Christ Church of Lauterday Saints is with the government. They control all of the legislation that is passed, they control nearly all of the special interest groups in the Utah area, and as a result, the church is regularly promoted in schools, courts and public places. Now, many of the results of this are not entirely bad, but the disturbing thing about it was how systematic their control over the state was. If they wanted something done, they knew which representative to appeal to, which group to go through to do it, and within a month, they had what they wanted.
Ugh, i just thew up a little in my mouth… I can’t believe they actually support a specific church in schools… Have they no shame?!
I know, pretty vile. But thus is the nature of federalism. If they don’t like it, they can move out of state. In a state with a population like Utah’s, it’s pretty easy for one group to gain lots of power. It’s like hyperpluralism, but on a much smaller scale, thank god.
“We wouldn’t be in the mess we are if people would quit throwing God out.”
I don’t think God is going to punish an entire nation because He doesn’t like how the government is run. That’s just nonsense.
Separation of Church & State is not in the constitution. It’s in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, saying there can be no government-sanctioned religion. That doesn’t mean that one’s religious beliefs should not inform how they govern or vote. One would hope they would, be it Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, what have you. It’s really only Christians you libtards have a problem with. And hey, I’m agnostic, non-conservative independent. But the hatred libtards have for conservatives is both funny and alarming.
Have you always been this much of a mess?
and the hatred conservatives have for the non-religious doesn’t scare you? being agnostic? “libtards” hate it when people try and force their religious beliefs on others. Thus, we hate the ultra-conservative religious right because they are constantly trying to force their religion onto our children. If you are trying to raise a child agnostic in America, you should be more concerned. Sure, you aren’t going to be taken in by the religious nutjobs, but what about the next generation. Some of us have generalized the hatred to all christianity, because, in America, the only ones with the political power to impose their religious doctrine on the rest of us are the religious right. I prefer to try to keep separate the crazy people who believe in God from the SUPER DUPER crazy people that believe in God and want to MAKE YOU LIVE BY THEIR MORAL COVENANT. But its hard sometimes because much of the christian doctrine is about forcing your beliefs on the unbelievers and killing those who refuse to convert. How do you think the church justified the crusades or the inquisition? So, if you start telling people they shouldn’t make ME live by THEIR MORALS, they say, “but your morals are wrong. You NEED to live by MY morals or you will go to hell. I am doing it for your own good.” These people are so crazy, they think they are helping you by forcing their religion down your throat. They think they are doing the “right” thing. How do you stop someone who is convince the horrible thing they are doing is the right thing to do?
1) Christianity does not call for your death.
2) In evangelical Christianity your acts have nothing to do with salvation.
3) Is it really THAT horrible if they don’t want you to go to hell. Even if you don’t believe they are just trying to help.
I like what Penn said about his experience.
There’s a link there.
“Is it really THAT horrible if they don’t want you to go to hell”
If you’ve ever tried being a non evangelical in the deep south, or in any uber religious part of the country, yes, it is that bad.
I was a catholic who went to college in the deep south. Almost every Sunday, I had to go to church with baptists and evangelicals holding signs telling me that I was going to hell for being Catholic. THey also were at the Jewish temple, the Muslim Mosque, and the Hari Krishna house whenever they had THEIR services. Yet no one ever did anything like this to the evangelicals, it was ALL one sided. How would you like to go to church for 4 years with people screaming at you that you’re going to hell every time you walk in the door.
I also was an anthropology student, and evolutionary sciences were taught in the anthropology building. At least once a week there would be protestors outside who would come up and tell the students as we left class that we were going to go to hell if we believed evolution over the Bible, and they would constantly confront the teachers saying they were brainwashing us and sentencing us to hell.
My friend was Jewish and her dorm mate was a born again. Her room mate spent every single day telling her she was going to hell, and would sometimes bring friends over and they would have prayer groups for my friend’s soul.
ANother friend of mine’s little brother came out to his parents, who instantly sent him away to one of those “straight re education camps.” It didn’t work, but his parents never stopped trying and never stopped telling him he was going to hell. The kid ultimately killed himself.
My husband is an Iraqi veteran from a conserative Christian family in Georgia. We don’t live there but he is in the reserves and his base is near Rex, Georgia, where his parents live, so he would be at his parents’ often right before and after deployment. A member of his parents’ church found his facebook page and saw that he was friends with “Iraqi veterans against the war.” His church and parents were of the opinion that the war is a matter of faith, that it is indeed a Christian crusade. Keep in mind my husband isn’t even ACTIVE with this anti war group, he just had them as a facebook friend. His church kicked him out, and his parents threatened to disown him. They ultimately didn’t, but now will hardly speak to him. His mother told him, her only son and a veteran who is scheduled to go back to Iraq this May, that she was no longer proud of him because he was not the good Christian that she raised him to be.
So yeah, I think it’s pretty friggin horrible.
You expect me to believe that you personally have had every single bad stereotype happen to you or someone you know personally?
I live in the south and go to college here as well, and I don’t know anybody who has even heard of the crap you’re talking about.
The only time I hear of Christians doing this sort of stuff is when anti-religious people say it happened to them.
I don’t do it often, but I’m calling out a liar.
That’s fine. Frankly, there’s no way I can make you believe me. I’m only takling personal anecdotes and there is obviously no way for me to prove what I say.
I can tell you where I went to college, which is the University of Florida. Where I went to Church is St Augustine, it’s on University Ave. The Jewish temple is right next door. The place where the protestors always hang out to bug the students and teachers is called Turlington Plaza. If you ever want to drive down to Gainesville, Florida, you can see this for yourself. They were there every week for the 4 years I was in college so I can’t imagine they’re not still doing it.
I also lived in Union Springs Alabama and Rex Georgia, and I will say that I NEVER saw Christians protesting like this in those towns. However, I did know people there who, like my husband, felt compelled to lie about their Christianity.
My guess is that they are really revved up at the UF campus because it is a liberal arts campus smack in the middle of an extremely conservative Christian area. That is probably what makes them so pro active there.
The church my husband received his intervention from is the Rock Baptist Church in Rex Georgia.
And frankly, did you ever stop to think that the stories you here are true, and it’s the REASON people are anti religious? Of course you wouldn’t witness it yourself if you yourself are an evangelical Christian, no one needs to bug you.
And I just said I’m Catholic, so I don’t really know how that makes me anti religious. I had no problem with evangelicans until I went to college and had to deal with this BS
Seriously, don’t take my word for it. Take a trip down to Gainesville. Or, probably, you could just go to any liberal college which is in a Southern conservative area and have the same experience.
The only way I can prove myself is by you going down to Gainesville. If you don’t want to do that, then I guess I’ll just have to accept you think I’m a liar. Oh no. I’m devastated.
though I do want to point out, it’s not like all or even most evangelicals were doing this. Most evangelicals were perfectly lovely people who tried to set an example just by beign good Christians. It was always the same cast of characters doing these sorts of things around campus, and it was a small group at that.
I don’t have a problem with people who are CHristian who just want to serve God and be good people. Of course I don’t have a problem with them, and I know that that’s MOST Christians, including non Catholics.
But you asked “is it so horrible that they don’t want you to go to hell.” The fact of the matter is that there is a growing number of fundamentalist Chrisitans who think they can bully the rest of us into being “saved.” And they never seem to do so by being nice. They either carry huge crosses or those big white signs that list all the different people who are going to hell, and they get in your face, and they try to convert you by mean ness and fear.
If a Christian tries to convert me by telling me God loves me and their church is a good path, and they are nice about it and don’t consistantly bug me, well that’s just fine. And that’s most CHristians.
But the fact is that there are also those who AREN’T that way, and they are very vocal, and very aggressive. And dealing with them is very horribel indeed.
Was it these guys? They seem like they’re bordering on WBC crazy-tude….
Oh my gosh it IS these guys! I recognize one from the web page because he’s the guy who was ALWAYS at Turlington Plaza!
There was actually two groups that did it, you could distinguish them because one group always had the big crosses and the other one always had the signs. But definitely this group was one of them. I never knew who they were until now! Heh!
LOL! I luuuuurv Google.
We don’t do stuff like that in Memphis; it’s….well, it’s just tacky.
sorry to specify, when I say “the never seem to be nice about it” I mean in that particular subset, the kinds with the signs who yell. I only EVER saw THEM acting agressively. I wasn’t saying that evangelicals as a whole “never seem to be nice” just that one subset in particular.
If you really think that there aren’t evangelicals like this, you need to rent yourself a copy of “Jesus Camp” stat.
I came in hot…………….sorry.
I think the reason I’m so ill about this is because I could say the same thing about atheists. I can’t remember the last time one simply said no thanks I don’t want to talk about this.
They have to tell you how evil you are for being a person of faith.
Like, say, oh, I dunno, DAVE.
*Looks at Dave*
Yeah…like that.
It would just be soooo terrible if we could all get along and believe what we want to.
Only if it’s rational to Dave. Anything else is fairy tale death cults.
I’m converting to Hansel and Gretel.
You polytheistic slime ball! I’ve joined the Church of Rumpil…Rumpel…that guy with the long name.
I am sorry too for being snappish at you for acusing me of lying!
Also I agree with you that many atheists are the same way WHEN you talk to them.
The fact of the matter is that if you’re a self righteous prick, you’re going to be a self righteous prick whether you’re an atheist or a Christian or whatever else.
but I think there is a distinction…atheists are brutal online. I would never deny that, and I’ve seen countless comments by them that are just as hateful and intolerant as the worst thing I’ve ever heard from fundamentalists.
But the thing is…they stick to online. When’s the last time you were at a Christian event or went to church and there were atheists there to actually harass you in your face about being a Christian?
However, when I was down south, whenever I went to an event that was deemed even the least bit “sinful” i.e. a rock concert, there was never not Christians there protesting us and telling us we were going to hell. Now again, it would be a SMALL group of Christians, but they were always there.
This is even non uncommon up north. They’re always out in full force for the September Boston hemp fest, but here’s the example that REALLY gets me…
last May i did the Walk for Hunger in Boston, and around Boston Common, this group of fundamentalist Christians jumped in the walk and walked with us for MILES preaching (but in a very hteful, you’re all going to Hell kind of way). And this was the Walk for Hunger for pete sakes! We were doing something GOOD! And they STILL were out there telling us we were going to Hell!
Can you imagine a group of atheists showing up at a Christian soup kitchen and yelling at the workers that they’re evil for being Christian?
Agreed, plenty of atheists are total dicks to anyone who acknowledges a God might exist. Please don’t think they speak for all of us.
You know what is funny is that after I moved away from down South, when I then would talk with conservative white Christians either on line or in real life, and yet they always seemed to maintain that things that were witnessed by myself and countless people I know simply didn’t exist.
They would say they never or almost saw overt racism or bigorty. Yet when I was at UF, when a spanish girl ran for president, the spanish american house was completely vandalized, with “no spics for president” spray painted across the front. Several Muslim kids were beat up. A swastika was painted on the Jewish Temple. There was a KKK rally and a neo Nazi rally. And those were just the major things, that’s just the more publicized ones. I saw other examples of overt racism every single day.
Also, I’m told that women are totally respected as equals down there. Yet all my female friends who were in high powered jobs- lawyers, doctors, etc, were constantly told by others that they needed to learn there place, that they weren’t suited for man’s work, etc. My own mother in law told me I HAD To be subservient to my husband.
You guys say there’s no religious prejudice, yet I had to deal with it first hand on a weekly basis.
Is it just a matter of you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to see what life is like in conservative Christian southern communities for people who aren’t conservative, white Christians, or is there like a convention you guys all go to where you agree on how exactly to lie to pretend none of it’s happening?
There is a convention. Jesus flies down and everything.
He’s got one of those t-shirt shooter things too. It’s AWESOME!!!
And we all get a good laugh about how all the atheists don’t get to join in the fun.
“You’re crazyyyyyy Jesusssss!!!”
does jesus host the wet tee shirt contest?
bitter troll can win prizes with his manly troll boobies
Dude, Jesus has the best wet tee contests! Suddenly every girl that goes up there is a d-cup and everybody wins!
Yay, happiness for all!
That’s just the prep for when he tells everyone to keep their head in the sand, be racist, and sexist, but to only do it to atheists. Once this is done he tells us to pretend that we don’t do it. This is to confuse the non-believers. We can’t say no to Jesus’s request because, well I mean, he just gave us 20 sets of d-cups ya know!
It’s possible that it’s a matter of Not Living In Gainesville….which sounds spectacularly awful.
Do you mind if I ask where (roughly) that was? I’ve lived in the Bible Belt all my life and never had to deal with anything more annoying than the occasional person at my door wanting to give me some tract/brochure about their church; that kind of thing. I’ve never seen anyone protesting outside another denomination’s church.
i feel your ya army wife. I grew up in Texas. YES it is REALLY freaking horrible because they THINK they are trying to help…and after their first attempts fail, they start to give “tough love” by telling you you are going to hell all the time and pestering you about your eternal salvation. They make sure everybody knows you are an atheist and nobody will be friends with you because their parents won’t let them…thats right..their parents won’t let them. I won’t go into my stories. Army wife’s were horrible enough, but I just wanted to say that she isn’t alone. The persecution of the non-religious (esp. in public schools) in the south is really quite ridiculous. If you didn’t grow up non-religious, then you wouldn’t know because you were on the other side, and you didn’t know how much you hurt us.
I could see where you were coming from in all but one of your points.
“The persecution of the non-religious (esp. in public schools)”
That was funnier then this LOL ever thought about being.
I guess in the prayer that kids are no longer allowed to say (even to themselves) they must have said something mean to God about you.
You can pray silently to yourself anywhere, anytime. How’s anyone going to stop you? (I saw a bumpersticker once that said “As Long As There Are Math Tests, There Will Be Prayer In Schools”!)
I suspect he means that when the other kids asked where he went to church, or if he wanted to say grace before lunch, he explained his position and they looked at him like he had two heads. Uncomfortable, I’m sure.
Maybe so, but being “uncomfortable” and growing up to tell people you were “persecuted” are two VERY VERY different things.
Quite true, but it may be a matter of perception. *shrugs*
One of us misunderstands the bumper sticker. I take that as meaning “As long as their are math tests, students will continue to panic and worry over them.” That’s my take anyways…
no it says, “the Christian dilema is that you can’t live with Christians and you can’t feed them to the lions anymore.” *stolen from Jane St.Clair*
That’s so sad! The lions will go hungry!
When did you go to school in Texas? (This is a serious question – I graduated high school there a few years ago and experienced quite the opposite.)
Well, it’s not the deep south, but Colorado can get pretty rough on that front. I’ll say I’m an agnostic just to avoid someone trying to convert me. I’ve heard their points before, and they were pretty unconvincing the first time. The best, though, is the door-to-door mormons and their silly white shirts and bikes. I’ll just mess with them when they come to my door. That’s what they get for trying to sell God like a set of encyclopedias.
-sits back in his lawn chair under his bridge, drinking bitter beer-
*hands down a bottle of Jose Cuervo Gold*
mmmm nummy – offers up some cap’n morgan-
Fact: I don’t know the intention of the poster.
Fact: Separation of church and state was never mentioned in the Constitution.
Fact: It was intended to keep the state out of the church, not to abolish every last vestige of the Christian heritage of the founding fathers.
Fact: Most everyone who reads this will misinterpret it as me saying that we should become a theocracy.
Fact: I’ll just let you do that.
yes . . . this is never mentioned in the constitution or the declaration of indepence or any poilical document, but was taken out of a private letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. it would be like us screening President Obama’s personal calls and 200 years later and taking a conversation he makes with his cousin into a policy of our nation. wanna see what the new world was originally founded on, read the Mayflower Compact. It directly says in the beginning that their endeavor was to help the Chrisitan Church expand (para.). this was the first document signed on American soil. Its sad how this part (and many others) are being written out of history. We shouldn’t add to what history said, but we shouldn’t alter it in a way to make it more acceptable today. It was what it was, lets keep it that way! lets not take anything away from history, we see how that worked for many other countries in the past . . . not well . . . limit the rights and beliefs of a few and the whole chain becomes weaker.
Uh. Oh. Again.
It stems from a general feeling of superiority. Many (not all) people with no faith have latched on to that as hard (if not harder) then many people of faith.
The worst part is that, if you choose to be anti-religious, they will haunt you for the rest of your life with hate. People will try to give me some religious bull**** and I will have to decline them (I won’t even mention I am an atheist) and I have them jumping down my throat about how I am going to Hell and that, if you don’t believe in the Lord, nothing good will come to you even though I am probably more decent than most Christians/Religious people out there.
And now I am putting a name to which religion I find the most fault with because, my many times over seas, other religions don’t bother me but the Christians try to attack me.
Just saying.
christain ninja’s jump out and yell at bitter troll for not believeing the samething he does, and then the christain vikings burst through the door with axe’s and maces and lazer words. throwing bibles like ninja stars..that oddly the christain ninja’s didnt have
Then Jesus loads up that t-shirt gun with pocket bibles that can kill
I’d be interested to know if that’s simply a function of the fact that you come into contact with many more Christians than, say, Buddhists or Taoists or Mormons or Muslims combined, or if Christians are truly more violently judgemental?
I just tell them that they look pretty good in them jeans…
My in-laws are Jehovah Witnesses.. I don’t mind, especially when they come visiting. They’ll knock on the door and when I open it I say, “Sorry, I’m not really interested.” Luckily they have a great sense of humor.
Perhaps it’s probably because people who agree with you are in Congress, and they vote on laws that limit the rights of others.
I forgot to mention that people who believe as you do also voted for Proposition 8. So it’s not just your opinion that is objectionable, it’s the effect it has on others’ lives.
Pesky little thing, you know “Freedom.” You see, you’re “Free” to believe what you like, I’m “Free” to believe what I like, oh and you don’t have to like what I like, and vice versa, BUT — you don’t get to make laws about it just cuz you don’t like it. See Freedom is messy. As far as the whole Judeo-christian founding thing? Read ALL of the above posts and see how messy it gets. SO, get out there and START THUMPIN…
It’s interesting that the phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear anywhere, in any literature. until 1802, 20 years after the events in this picture.
It appears in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and in context has very little to do with what it is generally considered to mean today. Jefferson was referring to the state’s responsibility to refrain from interfering in religion; today it is generally understood to mean that religion (or even religious individuals) should not affect government.
Not to be the token scholar, but has anyone here studied or even read the constitution? If so, you are already aware the the idea of the separation of church and state is not in the constitution, but was in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. Just thought some history and political education might assist you from making a fool of yourself in formal company.
Dude I had no idea
Wow. It’s amazing that you, the token scholar, are the only person to say that about separation of church and state.
…in the last 5 minutes that is.
Reading the comments might assist you from making a fool of yourself on this website.
whats wrong with makeing a fool of yourself on a website?
i mean…lotsa people do it all day long..
THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED BY MOON MEN TO COVER UP ROSWELL!!!!!
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington Farewell Address 1796
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington Farewell Address 1796
Actually, George Washington didn’t say that in his farewell address. here is a copy of the complete copy of the ACTUAL address:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
It was established years ago by various news outlets that the quote you put was most fabricated by a Christian group for a propaganda campaign. There is nothing in the historical record which records Washington ever saying or writing this.
You dishonour the name of a great man just to try to push your silly views? You truly are pathetic. That is the most unpatriotic thing I have ever seen/read/heard. And surprise surprise, it’s from some ultra-conservative crazy.
This is a lie. You are putting your own propaganda in the mouth of a great man. You should be ashamed.
Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
So, it’s agreed? We can trust US citizens to actually READ this document we fought with our lives to protect and not pretend like a line or section about separating church and state exists in it?
It’s true, the constitution only says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
the actual phrase “separation of church and state” is mainly derived from a letter Jefferson wrote, which obviously was not written at and read aloud at the constitutional convention.
Though “separation of church and state” is obviously DERIVED from the 1st ammendment, it isn’t actually stated IN the first ammendment. The problem with the first ammendment (as it is with all the ammendments for that matter) is that it leaves a lot open to interpretation. Where exactly is the line that makes sure that an official religion isn’t being established, the line at which it is clear that laws are being enacted specifically to endorse one religion at the cost of others, requiring other religious observers to follow the precepts of another religion by being bound to laws which are ONLY derived from religious precepts, therefor denying them THEIR right to free religion?
Lawyers before the Supreme Court have been debating where exactly that line falls for centuries, and will likely continue to do so for centuries to come.
Wrong document:
Jefferson’s Letter to Danbury Baptists – read it before you randomly spout “Separation of Church and State!!”
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.
The only difference if Jefferson believed in personal freedoms, so in this letter he’s explaining how they are free to worship how they will – without interference from the state, not how they’re free to tear down other’s organized religion in the name of the constitution.
Read your history, the reason freedom of religion is in the Constitution is because American citizens didn’t want to be forced to practice a religion that their country presented – not because they didn’t want to look at Christmas trees in public schools, what a joke.
This pic definitely was: Document citation fail!
Well, I’m no American, but from reading the first amendment, it clearly appears that your Constitution consecrates the separation of church and state.
How is that separation of church and state working out for you?
Correct me if I am wrong but the further we get away from religion the more school shootings and gov’t corruption we see.
RESPECT for God, Country, others and self needs to be revamped.
actually almost every social ill- spousal abuse, child abuse, violent crime, divorce, drug abuse, high school drop outs, etc is most common in the MOST religious parts of the country- the deep south and midwest. New England, which is the most secular part of the country, has the lowest violent crime rate in the country, lowest divorce rate, lowest high school drop out rate, lowest hard drug abuse rate, etc.
So actually, it’s working out pretty well.
It’s the parts of the country that are most religious are the most violent.
Which I’m not saying is BECAUSE of religion. I think it’s a matter of economics- that poverty is the largest reason for social problems. The poorest areas of the nation are typically the most religious.
Also Scandanavia is largely secular and has the lowest crime rates in the world. Whereas in Central and South America, almost the entire population is DEEPLY religious, yet violence is endemic in their societies.
Again, don’t think this is BECAUSE of religion, but religion sure hasn’t helped matters.
Arguably, poverty creates a tendency to turn to religion in times of trouble, which could explain the correlation.
I think violence is bred out of desperation and some people use religion as a justification for it.
New England and Scandanavian countries are not hot beds of poverty, so I think the relationship between violence and religion is not entirely cause and effect.
Actually the big news ticket school violence happens in “middle-upper class” America. We use metal detectors in”low” class America.
REASONABLE LOGIC WIN!
I’ve got bad news for you. There’s been government corruption and all that bad stuff for a long, long time. Having more religion in schools or the government doesn’t help matters in the least. Hell, you talk about violence but there’s just gobs of it in the Bible itself.
I always thought it was funny God killed more people than Satan ever did. I’m not criticizing anything, I just find it funny.
I have heaps of issues over the Old Testament, I’ll be honest. There’s tons in there that doesn’t sound like the kind of thing an all-loving God would do. My God doesn’t act like that. (And yes, before you say it, that IS picking and choosing what I want to believe out of the religion, but everybody does that.)
Hey, at least you’re thinking for yourself.
He doesn’t have any problem with inventing diseases and letting millions of people die because of it and famine.
Class A bastard.
This is not directly in response to your particular rebuttal, ReligionIsDumb, but to the massive smattering of discourse that my first comment spawned in general. I’ll try to respond to the main things that came up.
First off, if you fall into the “I believe in first grade logic,” “religious people are just afraid of an invisible man in the sky,” or any of the other extremely ignorant categories, let’s just leave the insults at the door and don’t bother responding to me, okay? If you genuinely believe any religion to be illogical or completely unscientific, then you are welcome to explain to me HOW the big bang happened (never mind WHY), or WHAT or WHO caused it. Until someone gives me a decent answer to that, my belief that there is an intelligent, supernatural being who intentionally created me is no more illogical than your belief that nothing created something for no reason at all.
Now I’ll try to address the more sophisticated responses, because I surely respect good discourse, especially if we’re willing to set aside or suppress our biases for its sake.
I just deleted probably 600 words about my “teaching and enforcing atheism” in an effort to be more concise. My argument is this: evolution is taught as fact, or was when I was in school. Intelligent design is/was banned entirely for fear of breaking this “separation” (that still isn’t in the constitution). By omission, atheism is taught and enforced in this way. If school is their only place they’re learning (admittedly unlikely), by our laws a child will grow up having been taught atheism. Can this be denied?
Another interesting topic: Note how the evolution vs intelligent design debate is played up so much. This is all a moot point, honestly. For one, if God can create the entire world and life on it, why couldn’t he create a planet with dinosaur bones already in it? Evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. For two, evolution still fails to explain the more important questions. If we go with the standing Big Bang -> Volcanic Activity -> Primordial Soup -> Evolution thing, we still have no justification, no scientific evidence, and no reasoning whatsoever for how or why the big bang happened. It’s amazing (convenient) that no one in the (atheistic) scientific community discusses this when the debate comes up.
Now, to explain “atheism is a religion.”
Dictionary.com’s first two definitions follow:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Note the “esp.” in the first definition. “Supernatural” is not required. The second definition is even more lax. “fundamental set of beliefs and practices?” How many times do we hear from an atheist in any debate the terms “proof” (especially mathematical proof), “scientific method”, and so forth? The belief that something must have sufficient (which is subjective of course) evidence to be true or that the scientific method is somehow infallible or universally accurate are the very FOUNDATION of atheism. These are also the practices. I see it in half the comments on this very page: that if there’s not enough evidence, it must not be believed. It’s not that this concept isn’t reasonable. But “evidence” is only strictly defined by a bunch of scientists. For me, I look at the complexity of the eyeball and I see evidence of intelligence, not genetic mutation.
I think the only loose end I’ve left here is the idea that “it’s a science class, so you only teach science there.”
That’s all fine and good, but that’s not the context that children are taught under. A child doesn’t walk into science class and go, “Okay, I now know that anything that cannot be properly applied to the scientific method will be omitted until I walk back out of this room.”
Saying that talking about creationism in school shouldn’t be done because it “can’t be tested” or “doesn’t have scientific evidence” (the first statement isn’t really true, because the support for the big bang is as much evidence for Genesis 1 as it is for… well, whatever atheists believe caused that. The second statement is also categorically false, for much the same reasons. For the sake of argument, though, I’ll pretend they are true) doesn’t hold water because nowhere else in public school are things omitted for that reason. If I go to music theory class and am taught the various aesthetic qualities of this or that piece, just because a given aesthetic can’t be tested doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed. More importantly, if it’s about being in science class, why can’t we discuss it in English class when the subject matter (e.g. Shakespeare or some such) starts talking about God?
And heck, I’m so sick of these ignorant preconceptions that I’ll go one step further: Do ANY of your claims about creationism having no evidence have a SINGLE fact to back them up? These are assumptions based on not knowing (or wanting to know) the truth. There are over three dozen prophecies in the the OT, whose text is (using your “foolproof” carbon dating) known to have been written at a certain date, which came true years or centuries later. Archeological studies ABOUND with evidence supporting various events ONLY documented in the Bible and often as prophecies instead of historical records. Hundreds and hundreds of reknowned scientists with several doctorates have dedicated decades of their lives to gathering evidence and writing as yet irrefutable books on why Christianity, specifically, is accurate. But you say “no evidence” and “invisible man” because you BELIEVE in your RELIGION (atheism). And your FAITH is almost as astounding as the relative historical accuracy of the New Testament to any document dated within 1000 years of it in either direction.
I just hope your beliefs are based on genuine, PERSONAL research (not indoctrination, which I know you realize works both ways), instead of a given episode of Family Guy.
Ok, I’ll just try to focus this down to a single, pertinent point, because I don’t feel like responding to all of the things you just pointed out, so let’s just go with creation of the universe.
So, in your view, God created the universe and all intelligence in it because he existed before time and space and was a source of infinite energy. As you noted in your comment, you want fact and reason to govern the direction of this argument, and i will do my best to oblige.
First, I will say that in my belief, the existence of God before time and space (aka, the universe) seems to be irrational, because nothing can have existed before time and space, because that would just imply a further extension of time and space. That is not to say, however, that god does not exist, he just cannot exist in our plane of reality operating under this universe’s laws of physics, because his existence would seem to defy them. In our universe, he could exist in a metaphysical or spiritual sense.
So, with that under our belts, one must establish the origins of the universe under a rational context, not spiritual. According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Assuming that is true, we must reason that matter, as it is has always existed. Now, to break that down further, “always” still implies a unit of time. Existence, as we know it, is a function of time. You cannot have an operating universe with nothing existing in it, because even so-called “empty space” has dark or exotic matter within it. Matter needs a time frame for existence to be possible.
Now, I don’t know how much you know about the physics behind the theory (soon to be law) of relativity, so I’ll make this a quick lesson into a particular one of it’s branches. Matter has a certain effect on time that is a function of gravity, and that is the effect we would feel as time slowing down. As density increases, the rate at which time passes decreases, thus making density inversely proportional to time. The second Law of thermodynamics states that all of the matter and energy in the universe is a constant, and will only ever change form. Now, as matter is a function of time, the opposite is also true. Time must have matter to exist, because you cannot have matter just randomly floating around, free of any time restrictions, because our previous statement of matter being a function of time would rule it as impossible. So, if you combine all these things, you reach an interesting conclusion; if all matter and energy in the universe were compressed down into a single, infinitely dense form, time, and therefore our universe would be stuck in a single quantum moment, until that energy could not be contained. This would mean that NOTHING would have existed before it, because it would have no time frame to exist in.
Now you might ask “well, where did all that matter come from?” That statement, however, is loaded with the preconception that it had a place to exist in the first place, which we have clearly ruled out in the previous paragraph. So, I submit to you that matter has always existed, because that always is a lot shorter than we might think. There could not have existed a universe without time, and time could not have existed without some form of matter/energy, so they existed forever as an eternal absolute, each justifying the others existence. To sum up, this all really for making this point; the big bang happened because it had to. Physical law sets up a scenario where in the churning, bubbling mass that was the singularity of our early universe before the big bang, time was sort of “stuck.” The energy contained in this singularity was so great, however, that it could not be contained and was released in what we know as the big bang.
Now, in regards to your comment about atheism being a religion, you’re half right. It could be construed as a religion, but it doesn’t have a set of morals or HUMAN principles to live by. Also, I don’t want you to confuse Theism with religion with theism. All religions have the quality of being theist, or belief in the existence of a living, conscious higher power, whereas atheism is the exact opposite, hence Atheism, meaning not theist.
There you go. That is all.
I know, those arrogant self absorbed pricks are the worst, aren’t they. So I suggest you take your own advice and shut up.
Did you know that more and more that church and state are blending all over the world? Islam is right up there and tied with Christianity for numbers, and they don’t believe in a separation between church and state. To them, it is tied together. What happens when they move to the US and want to start practicing their religion. We have religious freedom correct? Well when your religion is also your government, we have a problem. Look up stuff on honor killings and stuff like that. The line is starting to become increasingly blurry within our increasingly global culture.
I really REALLY don’t see Muslims trying to force their religion into our government being a problem in the US. What happens in other countries isn’t my business.
They have their own courts though. They have a strong belief in Sharia law. In Sharia law, the courts follow the teachings of the Koran and enact their own punishments. For instance, in some cultures due to a long cultural history, women are not equals to men in any terms. In one actual case that happened semi-recently in another country, a woman was accused of cheating on her husband and due to that was sentenced to be buried halfway in sand and stoned to death. Under Sharia law, such punishments would be permissible, but in the US we are horrified by the concept. Their Sharia courts are a part of their religion, so would we deny their setting up of those courts to keep our government as the most powerful force out there and therefore restrict the freedom of religion or would we allow it, and see a conflict arise between our court system and their own? We are having an increasing number of practicing Muslims in our country, so therefore it is a difficult question that we will most likely be dealing with within the next few years. If you don’t think it is close, an honor killing similar to the situation above happened in Canada within the past few months and now Canada is being forced to deal with the issue. Canada is our next door neighbor so it is coming our direction.
People, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the constitution, the signing of which is what I believe is represented in the picture. The phrase comes from one of Jefferson’s letters to a constituent. Just FYI.
not entirely accurate.
Jefferson’s Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision the high court said Jefferson’s observations ‘may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.’ In the court’s 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, ‘In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.’ It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state (Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, Robert Boston, Prometheus, Buffalo, New York, 1993, p. 221).
It’s also been cited a few times in this thread, which you would have known if you’d typed “ctrl-f” before deciding to impart your exclusive wisomd upon us, As it turns out, you end up rehashing something that’s been beaten more than the SO DESERVING dead horse to the point where it won’t even smell due to having evaporated.
But, but, it iz NAWT there!
that was so original and awesome, what with the misplaced ICHC grammar too. I am so fantastically impressed I think my elbows might explode!
yu haz original andz teh sarcazem!
Can I watch? Honestly, exploding elbows would be awesome. Just point and shoot!
I’m too scared to let them explode any time soon – I think I might need to have them unexploded for future Frantic Waving Of Arms, and the like. It looks so silly when your arms only bend at the shoulders. :/
Exactly! ONLY “idiots” understand separation of church and state, because it’s an idiotic concept. Got it right!
soo… you idiots all do realize that nowhere in the constitution or the amendments is the phrase or even idea of ‘separation of church and state’…
it was actually coined in a letter from abraham lincoln to the dansbury baptist church… the church was concerned that their rights would be restricted by the state, and that that’s where he told them that there was separation of church and state to keep the state from telling them what to believe…. he was not saying that the state should have nothing to do with any kind of any religion…
soo… you idiot do realize that …
Ah, I cba. :p
Lol, intolerance suits you well! Has it ever crossed your mind that God may not exist? Or that you might be able to think for yourself, as hard as that seems to be for you? Also, the liberals aren’t attacking christians, they are opposing laws that take away peoples’ rights for no logical reason.
Uhm…I seriously hope that you guys do not take every word written in the Bible for law, because that book of fiction does contradict itself quite often…
The ten commanments are quite nice seeing as they are meant to shape a society, but please don’t use bible-phrases to underline your reasoning – that would be beyond stupid.
(And strengthen the average European’s prejudice about Americans and religious fanatics – apart from that paranoia quantities of you seem to have conserning socialism…)
Very few of us are actually like that, but their numbers are unfortunately growing.
It’s always the stupid ones yelling the loudest
But I was quite shocked at discobvering how many politically mature people go on ranting insanity over the net while doing some research for my diploma last week…
I am agnostic, so I seriously don’t care about what god one believes in as long as it makes them happy without interfering with other people’s mindsets. A good friend of mine is fairly faithful catholic, and we would have a good time arguing over some points until we agreed to disagree. However, she takes the bible as a work of fiction, containing some nice ideas but also a lot of nonsense (like women being impure or whatever during their strawberry week).
I guess I came off sounding much more angry and fanatic then I intended, and for that I apologize. But I do believe in every word of the Bible, and for that I do not apologize. To the comment about “thinking for myself”, I say, I am. I chose God and Jesus whenI was in my twenties. It wasn’t forced down my throat as a child and i wasnt brain washed as an adult. I used to be atheistic and then leaned more towards an agnostic mindset. But as I read more of the Bible, looked around at the world we lived in and searched my own heart and mind, I realized that there must be such a thing as singular truth. There can’t be relativism (what’s good for you, is not good for me, and what’s good for me might not be good for you, but all is ok… etc.) and one of the best arguments I have heard for that is if you are crossing the street and a bus is driving by, will you survive because both you and bus? No, it’s you OR the bus. Now, I know you might say that’s silly, and completely different than in terms of religion/God/Creation, and it is, but the metaphor works, and I found it convincing. But not everyone is going to accept that there is a God, and not everyone is going to have the same beliefs. So, as it would be wrong for me to yell at an agnostic or an atheist or a Muslim for not believing in Jesus, isn’t it wrong for someone to yell at a Christian for believing in Christ and rejecting the Theory of evolution (because it is only a theory, meaning it has never been proven) and relativism? Debate is good and, having a jewish background, is fun, too! But believing that there is truth out there and someone more powerful than you or me is not foolish or ignorant. Getting angry at them and insulting them harshly is. Remember the last time a nation did that? It was called Nazi Germany… (and remember, that wasn’t hateful Christians, Hitler and the Nazis rejected God and religious beliefs, as they were Nihilists )
History Fail: Separation of Church And State is NOT in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson had written in a letter to the Danbury Baptists that he believed there should’ve been a separation clause. The First Amendment says the Gov’t will not endorse nor prohibit a religion but it dosen’t separate religion FROM the Gov’t.
And do you know who first did say it should be done?
Pope Gelasius (in the V century! )