Seriously?
- Thread starter HHusky
- Start date
creepycoug
Well-known poster
> The laws of the United States contemplate many, many things that aren't precisely spelled out in the Constitution. We could never hope to run a modern society as complex as our own with the precise words, and only the precise words, found in the US Constitution. I know you'll come back and say we can, but that's because you like to be a stubborn mule.
> I will take Jefferson's read of the Establishment Clause over yours. Sorry. I just will.
> We have been, but religion and demographics, like everything, changes with time. And it has changed drastically since the Constitution was penned. We are less of a Christian country, and I would go out on a limb and say that trend will continue.
> Like Scalia, cowards hide behind strict constructionist reading of a 230 year old document. Instead of focusing on that, how about we tackle the real issue and pretend that we have the flexibility to make the best decisions, and forge the best solutions, for our country now? The issue is whether that's the best arrangement, and a great many people think it is. I'll bet when there are more Muslims, or more anything, here than Christians you'll think twice about invoking the government into religious life. There is no good reason for involving government in a matter as private as how, or even whether, one worships. I can say without equivocation that the only people I know personally who want the government in our church fall into one of two categories: they are generally stupid or they are not generally stupid but so drunk on religious life that they can't see anything w/o filtering it through that prism. I won't pretend to know which one you are. :wink:
HHusky
Active poster
We are very consciously not a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc nation. The separation of the church and the state was a uniquely Western European notion; it’s about 1000 years old now. It is one of the single best arguments for the superiority of Western Civilization. Try not to be a moron, please.
The US is a secular government and purposely set up to prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. And with good reason - given the absooute power is the King and the Church of England and the Pope/Catholicism. The Founders were wise to acknowledge there was more than one prism with which to view the Almighty or not.
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/b] 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.
[/i]
But most assuredly, the US is a Judeo-Christian country - a factious one but definitely heavily influenced by a wide swath of denominations. Try getting a Baptist and a Mormon to agree on much of anything. Not gonna happen
From Quakers to Puritans to Presbyterians to Amish to Catholic to Baptists, that shit is all over the board with theology - but are generally grounded in the same roots. Slavery, womens rights, workers rights, civil rights - all grounded in religious activism.
To deny otherwise is fucking stupid. And because of that freedom from a government sponsored church, other religions like Islam and Sikhs and Buddhist or whoevever the fuck wants can practice their religion freely in the US as well - as along as they don't behead or bomb or do stupid shit. Then they need to roast. (Hi, Tim McVeigh but but but motherfuckers).
Kudos to you atheist dicks for trying to revise history -but the Constitution is very clear with regards to government intervention into the citizens' right to practice whatever the fuck they want in terms of spirituality and religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/b] 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.
[/i]
Last edited:
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
Bob needs to speak for himself. It's bolded and in italics as to what the Constitution says.
If you want to debate semantics on 'separation of church and state', well...OK! It's there in black and white - the Gubmint can't start it's own religion. The gubmint can't stop anyone from practicing their own religion.
To talk to some adults again, it is an interesting conundrum.
In Christian and Christian derived religions there is a built in separation between private spiritual religious life and public citizen life. "Render unto Caesar" is a really, really important line from a historical perspective that allowed this divide.
Not all religions recognize, or even acknowledge, that there is or can be a separation. For many religions, the word is the law, the law is the state.
Where we, as a liberal and tolerant society come into conflict with such religions within the state isn't an easy solution as just to separate the two. Early 20th century politicians, philosophers, and activists fretted over what to do with Orthodox Jewish communities who were governed by their religious doctrine and not the modern state. The imperfect solution then was Jewish ghettos where Jewish law took precedent. The subject obviously became less pressing with the holocaust and the founding of a Jewish state as well as the growth of modern reform Judaism.
The same issue still rears its head in the modern world with any minority that might not share such a historical division between church and state(including fundamentalist Christian groups).
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Please to be pointing out where it says "seperation of church and state" in the constitution?
We are and have been a Christian nation. Therefore, .... um .....
So, I'm not sure where to go from here, but it sounded good when bobsled said it.
Usually, I understand your point. Today, I don't.
I know what it says, and further, I know how that's been applied. So much of the Constitution doesn't get you there on the face of its language. What does it mean for the "government to start its own religion"? How do you regulate that particular mandate other than to keep yourself out of the religion business other than to assure everyone their right to practice as they see fit.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
That's where the rub is, certainly. If your religion tells you that you can't obey secular law, we damn sure have a problem. In that limited, narrow, respect, secular law has to trump. We'll always need human beings, preferably learned people, to watch the government such that those laws are not enacted with the intent of squashing a particular religion. The law has to have some legitimate and basic secular purpose. If its conflict with religious cannon is incidental, we have to say too bad to the church in that instance.
On some very, very basic fundamental level on the question of how to structure a society, our values are irreducibly found in the basic fabric of what we want or try to do. Holding as self evident that it's not ok to steal other people's shit, or or to kill people with narrow exception, or to allow parents to raise their children as they see fit with basic parameters, how manage the vulnerable, establishing who has capacity to transact in society and who has capacity for culpability ... all of these things come from some moral code or sensibility that no doubt is greatly informed by religion. Even the atheist lives his life in accordance with some basic principles that were at some time influenced by the church.
Still, the fed shouldn't sponsor, explicitly or implicitly, a Christian view of the world. It should always endeavor to be as secular as it can be, all the while acknowledging that our basic rules of right and wrong come from somewhere.
Two points -
It makes me laugh my ass off when people contend the US isn't a "Christian nation". Of course it is. Always has been. Like Italy has always been a Catholic nation. Not the ass-hate Westboro Baptist dipshit chrisitans-however they are still free to practice their bad theology however they fuck they want - but this country is overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in its legal structure, laws and general acceptable behavior. Numbers are about 75% identifying as Christians in the US - down from 80%+ in the 50's and 60's but that's still a healthy majority. Guess is about half the decline are the influx of Muslims and "Others". The remaining half are just fucked up atheist heathens (faggy winky emoticon). You own 75% of the voters, you're probably going to get legislation that reflects close to that. It's like bitch ass Cuogs whining about coverage in the Seattle Times - of course the coverage is only going to be 25% or less Cuog. Christ.
Second - it also amuses me when faggy winky emoticon heathen atheists get all bent over religious institutions exercising their right to practice their religion in the policitcal realm. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a religious person from participating in the legislative process. To some that exercise of religion might mean marching in Selma. To some that might be rallying at an anti-abortion gathering. But somehow because they are affiliated with a religious group, that disallows their viewpoint on social behavior or laws to be somewhat less valid. Fuck that. As long as they are lawful in their conduct, who gives a shit what they rally for?
Last edited:
We had a US court uphold female genital mutilation for a Muslim
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Absolutely. I have no issue with that view at all.
Ironically, this sub-thread is in response to bobsled's post that we've always been a christian nation and where does it say separation of church and state? And that was in response to my post that a public institution shouldn't hire clergy.
Faggy winky comment was hurtful btw. I like you better when you're talking about porn.
Last edited:
MariotaTheGawd
New Fish
"Show me separation of church and state in the constitution" is a specious argument made by people who are either disingenuous and trying to score some cheap points, or I guess maybe don't know much about the context of the time that the constitution was written
creepycoug
Well-known poster
I was mutulated myself in a Catholic ceremony, now that I think about it.
HHusky
Active poster
Good post. Minor quibble. The modern notion of separation of church and state really derives from the High Middle Ages and exclusively in Western Christendom. In the East, the Emperor was very much the head of the church as well as the state. At that time, the Papacy’s effort to extricate itself from any nation state was really unprecedented and very much depended upon a series of highly enlightened Western Emperors.
The faggy winky emoticon was directed at those atheists buggered by priests in their youth.
Don't be hurt. They'll still take your money at the parish.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
I still like you better when you're talking about porn and poasting pictures.