once again the jokes write themselves...

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 
 but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,

neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]

you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is.

[godsshoeshine]

it could be argued that a complete seperation of church and state is not in the first amendment(although jefferson's letter was written in 1802, not the 20's - which is immaterial to this argument) but once you blur the line, then its a two way street with state being able to encroach on religion provided they do not establish a state religion. for me thats a slippery slope that no church nor worshipper should want

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 
 but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,

neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]

you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is. [/b]

oh but i suppose thats different.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

I think the idea that the government is perpetually trying to take people's right to worship away is a red herring that is constantly held forth by the Christian Right as a way of amassing ever more power.
 
 As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it.  One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  it could be argued that a complete seperation of church and state is not in the first amendment(although jefferson's letter was written in 1802, not the 20's - which is immaterial to this argument) but once you blur the line, then its a two way street with state being able to encroach on religion provided they do not establish a state religion. for me thats a slippery slope that no church nor worshipper should want

it's all a matter of what you mean by encroach.  for me, putting a christmas tree on public grounds, having an easter egg hunt (or simply calling it easter for that matter) or even having a cross on public lands as a memorial are not government sponsored religion. . .they are rather symbols that, while religious in nature, have taken on greater non-religious meaning in our culture.  in other words, these very symbols have taken on meanings beyond their original religious affiliation. . .we have an easter bunny and hunt for easter eggs; we have a christmas tree that may or may not have an angel or a star at the top of it (our tree has elvis on it, but he was a god among men)...they are all part of the ceremony of the holiday, albeit christian holidays, but usurped by a number of other non-religious associations (number 1 being the desire to get people out and buy stuff).
 
 do i want a vocal christian-based prayer before the start of every school day, no, but i see nothing wrong with the ability of students to pray on school grounds.
 
 i recognize that the image that the cross portrays is christian in nature because that was one way that romans practiced the death penalty, crucificion, at the same time, using the cross as a sign for remembrance and reverence for the dead, for example, is not the state endorsing a religion.  do i want the cross nailed up on a wall in every school or in every courthouse, of course not, but that shouldn't cloud our ability to say there are reasonable circumstances where these religious-based symbols is not government sponsoring one religion over another since these symbols have taken on different meanings...and that is my beef with secularists (and, honestly, multi-culturalists as well) in this country. . .
 
 i do realize that what i'm comfortable with may not be the same as everyone else. . .each one of us does our own bout of rationalizing our views to meet our other chosen beliefs and opinions.  and that's all fine. . .

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by very sonick:
     

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 
 but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,

neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]

you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is. [/b]

oh but i suppose thats different. [/b]

ummm. . .i don't think there's a constitutionally protected right to privacy. . .a number of states certainly have that in their constitutions, which is fine and all. . .but to argue that the u.s. constitution protects peoples' right to privacy is something i wouldn't necessarily agree with...if the constitution is silent on an issue, then i'm inclined to say that it's a state matter.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
 
 As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it.  One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.

you mean trying to understand what the constitution means instead of trying to make the constitution mean what we want it to say?  yeah, that's total craziness.

[godsshoeshine]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  it's all a matter of what you mean by encroach.  for me, putting a christmas tree on public grounds, having an easter egg hunt (or simply calling it easter for that matter) or even having a cross on public lands as a memorial are not government sponsored religion. . .they are rather symbols that, while religious in nature, have taken on greater non-religious meaning in our culture.  in other words, these very symbols have taken on meanings beyond their original religious affiliation. . .we have an easter bunny and hunt for easter eggs; we have a christmas tree that may or may not have an angel or a star at the top of it (our tree has elvis on it, but he was a god among men)...they are all part of the ceremony of the holiday, albeit christian holidays, but usurped by a number of other non-religious associations (number 1 being the desire to get people out and buy stuff).
 
 do i want a vocal christian-based prayer before the start of every school day, no, but i see nothing wrong with the ability of students to pray on school grounds.
 
 i recognize that the image that the cross portrays is christian in nature because that was one way that romans practiced the death penalty, crucificion, at the same time, using the cross as a sign for remembrance and reverence for the dead, for example, is not the state endorsing a religion.  do i want the cross nailed up on a wall in every school or in every courthouse, of course not, but that shouldn't cloud our ability to say there are reasonable circumstances where these religious-based symbols is not government sponsoring one religion over another since these symbols have taken on different meanings...and that is my beef with secularists (and, honestly, multi-culturalists as well) in this country. . .
 
 i do realize that what i'm comfortable with may not be the same as everyone else. . .each one of us does our own bout of rationalizing our views to meet our other chosen beliefs and opinions.  and that's all fine. . .

personally i dont really disagree, but the issue when dealing with religion, is people dont look to compromise, because if you compromise your faith you burn forever. government needs reason and faith needs the suspension of reason, it is best to keep them seperate

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
 
 As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it.  One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.

you mean trying to understand what the constitution means instead of trying to make the constitution mean what we want it to say?  yeah, that's total craziness. [/b]

you're both doing that now. you and you're "Christian America"

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
 
 Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
 
 Beyond that... yawn.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

back to something more interesting, this a quote from the Myspace of the girl who faked the Obama attack:
 
     "Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths off, but its better if you do."
 
 http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:dNPAoAhExjwJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendID%3D8513159+www.myspace.com/rabbitrocker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1& gl=us&client=firefox-a

[chaz]

It just gets better and better...
 
  Joe the Plumber for Congress!!!

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
  Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
 
 Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
 
 Beyond that... yawn.

why would i think that?  every citizen, regardless of background and circumstance, have exactly the same rights and abilities as anyone else.  everyone of us has the ability and freedom to become whatever we want if we work hard enough for it. . .just because the u.s. is a christian nation doesn't mean it discriminates against other religions.  we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
  Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
 
 Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
 
 Beyond that... yawn.

why would i think that?  every citizen, regardless of background and circumstance, have exactly the same rights and abilities as anyone else.  everyone of us has the ability and freedom to become whatever we want if we work hard enough for it. . .just because the u.s. is a christian nation doesn't mean it discriminates against other religions.  we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. [/b]

Calling it a Christian Nation is inherently discriminatory.
 
 Do you think the United States is an Aryan nation because most people are white?
 
 Keep your God to yourself.

[chaz]

No freedom FROM religion?  WTF?  That's just crazy talk....