U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-20-2010, 03:34 PM
 
888 posts, read 1,040,020 times
Reputation: 616

Advertisements

If you're gonna teach Creationism in school.
You might as well teach about Vampires and Werewolves while you're at it.
All three make entertaining stories.....period.

Steve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2010, 03:36 PM
 
2,693 posts, read 3,107,811 times
Reputation: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
one of the people i admired when i was young was hubert humphrey. even though i was a nixon fan in 68, humphrey impressed me because he was always willing to not only listen to his opponents, but acknowledge that they had good points. i never forgot that lesson.

Now though, if leaders listen to others they are weak, or if they acknowledge errors in their own judgement or change their minds based on unknown facts, its "flip-flopping". Pretty sad how bad the partisan pundits and district jerrymandering have made things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 03:51 PM
 
32,470 posts, read 26,347,895 times
Reputation: 19111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Again no - New York could not establish the Jewish religion as the primary religion of the state. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states.

edit: just saw your response above. Sorry for being repetitive.
not a problem, i make that mistake from time to time also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
That sentence MEANS to separate church and state. What's with the straw grasping?
no, that only means that congress CANNOT establish a state religion. for instance congress could not establish the church of the united states. that is all the first amendment means in regards to religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
Now though, if leaders listen to others they are weak, or if they acknowledge errors in their own judgement or change their minds based on unknown facts, its "flip-flopping". Pretty sad how bad the partisan pundits and district jerrymandering have made things.
i agree to a point. however there are times when one needs to stand their ground when it is the right thing to do. take kerry and his vote for the iraq war for instance. instead of him saying i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it(regarding the war spending bill) what he should have said is something more like, i regret my vote for the war on these reasons, and then list the reasons. that would have pretty much ended the talk of flip flopping on his part.

in the end it isnt that you change your mind, but what you say about changing your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 03:52 PM
 
2,693 posts, read 3,107,811 times
Reputation: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
not a problem, i make that mistake from time to time also.



no, that only means that congress CANNOT establish a state religion. for instance congress could not establish the church of the united states. that is all the first amendment means in regards to religion.



i agree to a point. however there are times when one needs to stand their ground when it is the right thing to do. take kerry and his vote for the iraq war for instance. instead of him saying i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it(regarding the war spending bill) what he should have said is something more like, i regret my vote for the war on these reasons, and then list the reasons. that would have pretty much ended the talk of flip flopping on his part.

in the end it isnt that you change your mind, but what you say about changing your mind.
or how people twist things for their own selfish gain...............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 03:55 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,486,765 times
Reputation: 1326
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
no, that only means that congress CANNOT establish a state religion. for instance congress could not establish the church of the united states. that is all the first amendment means in regards to religion.
There's a difference between respecting an establishment of religion and establishing a religion. Think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:04 PM
 
32,470 posts, read 26,347,895 times
Reputation: 19111
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
or how people twist things for their own selfish gain...............
truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
There's a difference between respecting an establishment of religion and establishing a religion. Think about it.
congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion;

meaning congress cannot establish a state religion. it cannot say that the official religion of the US will be catholic, or jewish. and it cannot decide to create a new church, the aforementioned church of the united states.

nor the free exercise there of;

meaning congress cannot tell me how to worship what ever deity i choose to worship. if i want to worship the sun god rah, that is my business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,067,276 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post


no, that only means that congress CANNOT establish a state religion. for instance congress could not establish the church of the united states. that is all the first amendment means in regards to religion.
Lets break it down, ok?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Thats the exact wording.

If they wanted to say "Congress shall not establish a state religion", they would have said that.

Instead, they said no law respecting an establishment of religion.

What that means is that if a religion has a particular law they'd like enforced by the federal government, the federal government is prevented, by law, from doing that.

Now, if this is a generally accepted moral standard by society, such as murder is wrong, thats fine. However, if your only standard is because the bible, qur'an, or torah say so, well then you can't pass a law respecting any of those books.

Hence, sharia law can't be passed into law by the Federal government, ever.

This law not only protects religious freedom, but it protects your religion from being persecuted by others. You are free to worship Satan in this country, if Christianity was a state religion, it likely would be against the law to worship Satan.

Look to other countries to see what happens when church and state mix. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Spain during the inquisitions. All of those have state sponsored religion.

Where the line is blurred is when you take into account homosexuality, abortion, and other things like that. While homosexuality is wrong to religions, there are others who see it as fine. But there are some, with no religious ties who see homosexual marriage as wrong. Fuzzy area, let the debate begin.

So there is a separation between church and state, the reason issues get blurred is when they are morally challenged by other non religious groups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:11 PM
 
2,693 posts, read 3,107,811 times
Reputation: 984
Something occured to me, just bear with me,

Lets pick a state. Any state. Just for fun lets say Nebraska (but insert whatever state you like). Lets say its decided that there is really no seperation of church and state. The christians institute prayer in school.

What if over the next 2 decades between immigration and conversion, a large portion of Muslims became elected into office and managed to have a majority of the legislature (I know its way unlikely, but bare with me).

Now lets say they decide to institute islamic prayer in schools. All public schools now pray to Allah multiple times per day.

In that scenario what do you think the Christian population would do? I'm guessing they would suddenly find separation of church and state or they'd move. (again this scenario is totally hypothetical, its just trying to make a point with an example, not arguing interpretation of a 200 year old piece of paper)

The point in this is to show that it seems like a great idea when you're in the majority......but what about the minority........and if we aren't protecting the rights of minority, are we really for freedom?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:15 PM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,486,765 times
Reputation: 1326
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion;

meaning congress cannot establish a state religion. it cannot say that the official religion of the US will be catholic, or jewish. and it cannot decide to create a new church, the aforementioned church of the united states.

nor the free exercise there of;

meaning congress cannot tell me how to worship what ever deity i choose to worship. if i want to worship the sun god rah, that is my business.
You STILL have the text wrong, so no wonder you get the meaning wrong.

It's ...Respecting an establishment of religion.

Still, the state doing anything that favors one religion over another is like establishing a state religion, so maybe it doesn't matter if your wording is wrong, it still means separating church from state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Neither here nor there
14,810 posts, read 14,009,480 times
Reputation: 32944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
If I asked you the color of your underwear, and you REFUSED to answer the question, would it be okay for me to tell the world that you were so stupid you didn't even know the color of your underwear. There is a difference between choosing to not answer a question and not knowing the answer. I realize that this is a nuance of communication, and you may not be able to process nuances. But if that's the case, I have no reason to talk to someone who's so limited linguistically.
Thank you for two things:

1. The private apology for a public insult. (Private is better than nothing but a public insult calls for a public apology, if one be forthcoming.)

2. For reminding me what an utter waste of time the P&OC Forum is. Nothing good ever happens here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top