Jump to content

Separation of Church and State?


baddog

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

The Libs what any mention of anything religion related removed from everyday life.  The Dims voted to remove the mention of God from their platform at the convention.  Big girl, new tobie, bluedove, westend, and the other leftist wingnuts support a wonderful party. Congrats!

Well they support abortion .....so why would they want GOD to be in our everyday life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kountzer said:

If separation of church and state is totally done away with in this country, and it is very close to happening, we will see tyranny, persecution and strife like never before.   Thousands of years of history bear this out.  

You say some really crazy and at times downright idiotic things but I let me go by as to not take up too much time. Sometimes however........

Tyranny? Persecution? Strife?

First a little history. School prayer was allowed in this country under the US Constitution until 1962 in Engel v. Vitale when the Supreme Court ruled that saying a nondenominational prayer before school violated the First Amendment under freedom of religion or what is called the establishment clause. Up until 1962 and almost 200 years of history in this country, how much tyranny happened? How much strife? 

I am not knocking the ruling but the belief that we suffered strife and tyranny because a person said a prayer. And what was the prayer that was ruled on? Here is the tyrannical prayer..... "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.". 

It didn't acknowledge which god. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Greek mythology? Please bless our country. Yep, until 1962 that was legal. For almost 200 years we suffered due to that.

Up until the year 2000 it was legal for student led prayer at functions like high school football games when a case from right down the road in Santa Fe, TX had their student policy banned by the high court. So more than 200 years this time, we suffered strife, tyranny and persecution because prayers were said over the loud speaker. Mind you, it is still legal to pray but it can't be done over the school (government owned) public address system. Prayer has not and cannot constitutionally be banned. The only prohibition is over whose system (taxpayer's money) it is said with as a matter of the First Amendment. I am not even sure how we survived as a country due to football game prayers. Horrible........

Back to your nonsensical rants. I will not likely respond to them as being too obvious to require a response. Even for you the claims of tyranny and strife seems over the top.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kountzer said:

If separation of church and state is totally done away with in this country, and it is very close to happening, we will see tyranny, persecution and strife like never before.   Thousands of years of history bear this out.  

By the way, the US Constitution hasn't been in effect for thousands of years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

You say some really crazy and at times downright idiotic things but I let me go by as to not take up too much time. Sometimes however........

Tyranny? Persecution? Strife?

First a little history. School prayer was allowed in this country under the US Constitution until 1962 in Engel v. Vitale when the Supreme Court ruled that saying a nondenominational prayer before school violated the First Amendment under freedom of religion or what is called the establishment clause. Up until 1962 and almost 200 years of history in this country, how much tyranny happened? How much strife? 

I am not knocking the ruling but the belief that we suffered strife and tyranny because a person said a prayer. And what was the prayer that was ruled on? Here is the tyrannical prayer..... "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.". 

It didn't acknowledge which god. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Greek mythology? Please bless our country. Yep, until 1962 that was legal. For almost 200 years we suffered due to that.

Up until the year 2000 it was legal for student led prayer at functions like high school football games when a case from right down the road in Santa Fe, TX had their student policy banned by the high court. So more than 200 years this time, we suffered strife, tyranny and persecution because prayers were said over the loud speaker. Mind you, it is still legal to pray but it can't be done over the school (government owned) public address system. Prayer has not and cannot constitutionally be banned. The only prohibition is over whose system (taxpayer's money) it is said with as a matter of the First Amendment. I am not even sure how we survived as a country due to football game prayers. Horrible........

Back to your nonsensical rants. I will not likely respond to them as being too obvious to require a response. Even for you the claims of tyranny and strife seems over the top.....

 

We had a Bible class in high school in the 60s/70s. Just some food for thought. I also think that the separation of church and state is somewhat misinterpreted. I think our forefathers ( what brilliant visionaries) wanted to make sure there was freedom of religion, but certainly not from religion. I could be wrong. 

The leaders we have today wouldn't make a pimple on those guy's arses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 19, 2017 at 10:30 AM, baddog said:

I must be missing something here....

This is the hidden content, please

I don't think you're missing anything.  They insist on removing any reference to a Judeo-Christian God.  Others are okay, especially their God Marxism.  The fact that they fear a Judeo-Christian God so much, indicates their subconscious belief.  I guess that's what a psychologist would call a paradox.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

Church / state issues started way before the USA or the us constitution.

Just curious Kountzer, since you've professed many times to be a Christian, do you support the Democratic Party, which repeatedly booed God at their convention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You say some really crazy and at times downright idiotic things but I let me go by as to not take up too much time. Sometimes however........

Tyranny? Persecution? Strife?

First a little history. School prayer was allowed in this country under the US Constitution until 1962 in Engel v. Vitale when the Supreme Court ruled that saying a nondenominational prayer before school violated the First Amendment under freedom of religion or what is called the establishment clause. Up until 1962 and almost 200 years of history in this country, how much tyranny happened? How much strife? 

I am not knocking the ruling but the belief that we suffered strife and tyranny because a person said a prayer. And what was the prayer that was ruled on? Here is the tyrannical prayer..... "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.". 

It didn't acknowledge which god. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Greek mythology? Please bless our country. Yep, until 1962 that was legal. For almost 200 years we suffered due to that.

Up until the year 2000 it was legal for student led prayer at functions like high school football games when a case from right down the road in Santa Fe, TX had their student policy banned by the high court. So more than 200 years this time, we suffered strife, tyranny and persecution because prayers were said over the loud speaker. Mind you, it is still legal to pray but it can't be done over the school (government owned) public address system. Prayer has not and cannot constitutionally be banned. The only prohibition is over whose system (taxpayer's money) it is said with as a matter of the First Amendment. I am not even sure how we survived as a country due to football game prayers. Horrible........

Back to your nonsensical rants. I will not likely respond to them as being too obvious to require a response. Even for you the claims of tyranny and strife seems over the top.....

 

The reason why those things were ruled unconstitutional was because they were done by public (that means run by the government) schools, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. If you wanted your kids to be required to pray in school and take Bible classes, you could just fork over some money and take them to a private school like Kelly, Legacy, or OCC, but that's none of my business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pdawg119 said:

The reason why those things were ruled unconstitutional was because they were done by public (that means run by the government) schools, which is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. If you wanted your kids to be required to pray in school and take Bible classes, you could just fork over some money and take them to a private school like Kelly, Legacy, or OCC, but that's none of my business.

Forgot one thing. Christianity can be taught in public schools, BUT it must be taught alongside other religions. This is usually done in high schools during Freshman Geography or Sophomore World History classes, and is taught alongside Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and sometimes, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shinto, and Daoism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Just curious Kountzer, since you've professed many times to be a Christian, do you support the Democratic Party, which repeatedly booed God at their convention?

Or go with the party that elected guy who said 'just grab 'em by the p#$y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

Or go with the party that elected guy who said 'just grab 'em by the p#$y.

I see you avoided the question.  So to you, "just grab'em by the p#$$y, is more offensive than boo'ing God?  And remember, only one man said "grab'em", but thousands booed God.  The majority of the Dem Party has no use for God.  As a Christian myself, I can have no use for that Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am almost apolitical, believe it or not.  I do vote though.  I don't think there is a human solution to this country's problems, much less the world's problems.  So when you ask me if I am democrat or republican...I don't know.  I don't see much good in either.  

I know a lot of christian democrats, scores.  If you travel and visit adventist churches in conservative areas, like the woodlands, there are more republicans.  Most of them are focused on church and bible prophecy and will tell you basically the same thing from the right side of the ledger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kountzer said:

Or go with the party that elected guy who said 'just grab 'em by the p#$y.

Don't understand why the republicans think they are the party of christianity when they do many unchristian like things. especialy the current President. Having Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon in the cabinet is one example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Don't understand why the republicans think they are the party of christianity when they do many unchristian like things. especialy the current President. Having Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon in the cabinet is one example. 

Is that like the Liberals saying they are the party of all-inclusiveness, but only if you belong to one of our accepted groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...