Separation of Church and State??

[mancattanite]

This guy is full of crap.

As far as separation of c&s...

Everybody can vote how they want. If people feel they should vote a certain way based on religious belief, that is completely acceptable. In that sense, religion will never be completely separated from the government. But when guys like this use lies to try to convince people that the government actually should support a certain religion, that needs to be stopped. Period. The government should never tell people what to believe. The government should allow everybody the equal opportunity to practice their religion freely.

I had a high school government teacher tell me one time "If people want have prayer in school I'm completely fine with that. I only have one condition: I want to write the prayers. And I'm Hindu."

[Dugout DickStone]

I completely support that con man's right to separate those huge rubes from their cash though.

[michigancat]

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.

well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.

When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.

Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes.  Religion created morality.

Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.

[Dugout DickStone]

Link?

[CNS]

I completely support that con man's right to separate those huge rubes from their cash though.

Yeah.  This is the free market at work.  Those dummies want someone to give them a line of bull and this guy is just supplying that demand. 

[CNS]

Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.

well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.

When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.

Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes.  Religion created morality.

Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.

Welp, better get all the non believers out of govt so that we(the tax payers) won't be ripped off anymore.  Honest Congress here we come.

[Dugout DickStone]

Separation of rube and cash.

[slobber]

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

[CNS]

Dob, I think there should be a separation. 

 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...

"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there.  "

But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.

Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.

Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Exactly.

[slobber]

Dob, I think there should be a separation. 

 

Thank you for that very civil answer! 

[star seed 7]

Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.

well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.

When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.

Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes.  Religion created morality.

Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.

lol that any of that has to do with religion instead of the immense power that corporations (republicans best friends) have over the government.

[Dugout DickStone]

Dob, I think there should be a separation. 

 

Ditto, even if that guy isnt a huge liar.

[mancattanite]

Outside income in 2010:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=I&year=2010

lol at the guy who reported $16 as his own outside income.  I guess we know that's he's trying to be completely honest though.

[michigancat]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

[slobber]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

[mancattanite]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?

I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?

[CNS]

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of

The NPR story I referenced earlier.

[michigancat]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

I would advise you to go ahead and assume that none of it's true at worst and it is an extreme stretch of the truth designed to separate money from rubes at best.

Then revisit your position.

[slobber]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?

I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?

First you basically say it doesn't matter what they were thinking, and then you say what they were thinking might be important.
I wasn't arguing against changing the constitution. I have just heard a lot of people say that the founding fathers didn't want religion in government and that is what they meant when they talked about church and state.

[slobber]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

I would advise you to go ahead and assume that none of it's true at worst and it is an extreme stretch of the truth designed to separate money from rubes at best.

Then revisit your position.

Okay. Thank you for the discussion.

[mancattanite]

I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. 

Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.

Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.

Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?

I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?

First you basically say it doesn't matter what they were thinking, and then you say what they were thinking might be important.
I wasn't arguing against changing the constitution. I have just heard a lot of people say that the founding fathers didn't want religion in government and that is what they meant when they talked about church and state.

I'm asking if it really is that important. There are some that would say it is all-important. I'm not really sure it is. Thus why I say it might be important.  I can see how you would think I was saying two different things.

I have also heard a lot of people say that what the founding fathers meant was that they didn't want religion in government.  I'm not exactly an expert on that.

One thing I do know is that Samuel Adams brewed his own beer.  I think we can all agree and be happy about that.

[bubbles4ksu]

how does everyone feel about the separation of mosque and state? do mosques have a role in government? should they be tax havens?

[slobber]

Samuel Adams! We can all agree! Even in the DOME.