Texas State BOE - Shrewd (not)- Religion as Science (builders, working)

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

reread the first amendment. no mention of separation of church and state there. "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."

So you'd prefer a theocracy? There are quite a few in the middle east I can recommend for you.

So you want the tightest possible interpretation of separation of church and state? Ok, let's interpret all of the amendments that way and limit gun ownership to citizens who are a member of a militia.

The statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has widely been interpreted by the courts to mean that government should stay out of religion. I wish it was worded stronger, but the legal precedents for separation are there.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

The statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has widely been interpreted by the courts to mean that government should stay out of religion. I wish it was worded stronger, but the legal precedents for separation are there.

Keep in mind that legal precedents which have any hint of liberalism are defined as "judicial activism." And we wouldn't want that, now would we?

[blakesq]

Example No. 1 of how liberals attack their opponents rather than respond rationally to a debate. I simply pointed out that the first amendment does NOT say ANYTHING about "separation of church and state". So what does the liberal typically do? He attacks me as being an advocate of theocracy, and tells me I should go to the middle east to be among my fellow theocrats.

This should show you independents, moderates, and open minded liberals, that liberals cannot win debates based on their ideas, they can only win by attacking their opponents.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So you'd prefer a theocracy? There are quite a few in the middle east I can recommend for you.

So you want the tightest possible interpretation of separation of church and state? Ok, let's interpret all of the amendments that way and limit gun ownership to citizens who are a member of a militia.

The statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has widely been interpreted by the courts to mean that government should stay out of religion. I wish it was worded stronger, but the legal precedents for separation are there.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by blakesq

This should show you independents, moderates, and open minded liberals, that liberals cannot win debates based on their ideas, they can only win by attacking their opponents.

And this statement is being made by an open minded conservative, I presume?

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

This should show you independents, moderates, and open minded liberals, that liberals cannot win debates based on their ideas, they can only win by attacking their opponents.

If you came to the table with some ideas, I'd consider them. But you have just blindly towed the arch-right-wing-conservative-radio-talk-show line as if a parrot without offering any actual ideas.

I cannot call the imaginary facts, lies, and distortions used to manipulate middle income and poor people into voting against their own interests actual 'ideas'. everyone's really concerned about the taxes going up-- even though only a handful of them will ever be in an income bracket where they see the tax hike. Spend time worrying about gay marriage (as if it really threatens traditional (or "opposite" (Thank you Miss California) marriage) while your kids go fight and die a sensless optional war.

Call Obama a socialst, but have no idea what the word means.

Wake up.

[blakesq]

It is a non-imaginery fact that the 1st amendment does not mention "separation of church and state". I guess in your book its a "fact" only if the Daily Kos says so. How sad.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

If you came to the table with some ideas, I'd consider them. But you have just blindly towed the arch-right-wing-conservative-radio-talk-show line as if a parrot without offering any actual ideas.

I cannot call the imaginary facts, lies, and distortions used to manipulate middle income and poor people into voting against their own interests actual 'ideas'. everyone's really concerned about the taxes going up-- even though only a handful of them will ever be in an income bracket where they see the tax hike. Spend time worrying about gay marriage (as if it really threatens traditional (or "opposite" (Thank you Miss California) marriage) while your kids go fight and die a sensless optional war.

Call Obama a socialst, but have no idea what the word means.

Wake up.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

It is a non-imaginery fact that the 1st amendment does not mention "separation of church and state". I guess in your book its a "fact" only if the Daily Kos says so. How sad.

Again, if your preference is a theocracy, I'd suggest you go live in one. However, it seems your preference is to be in the religious majority and attempt to marginalize the religious minority while pretending to be vicitimized yourself.

BTW, I don't read any online political rags. But, I'm sure you'll attack again. Seems the only move in your play book.

I'm done with you.

[catman]

"[E]stablishment of religion" means making a religion part of the Establishment; in other words, mixing religion and governemnt. The government is supposed to practice a hands-off posture in relation to it, neither promoting it nor working against it. If only it could, since most religions are thoroughly antidemocratic and absolutist, and their adherents tend to be likewise.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Again, if your preference is a theocracy, I'd suggest you go live in one. However, it seems your preference is to be in the religious majority and attempt to marginalize the religious minority while pretending to be vicitimized yourself.

BTW, I don't read any online political rags. But, I'm sure you'll attack again. Seems the only move in your play book.

I'm done with you.

I don't blame you for being "done with (him)" Not the least of reasons that he turned your own table around and you can't do the same...save lash out in frustation.

Backtracking, just who attacked who, orignally? Your ilk's MO is to label anyone who disagrees with you as right-wing nuts...homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, etc, (fill in the blank ad nauseum). As to this particular case? They must be religious fanatics who want a theocracy along the lines of what exists in the Middle East...!

So just who is attacking who as per sheer vicious and unfounded accusations and self-assumed summizes...?

[Arcane]

Curious statement from Perry.

Gov. Perry Says Politics & Religion Often Mix (http://cbs11tv.com/politics/Politics.Religion.Mix.2.1112574.html - broken link)