Posted on 07/21/2004 4:32:35 AM PDT by Navydog
My mind is always open. But it's obvious that we are not on the same page. You seem to be debating with me. I don't mind debate but it needs to be more direct. From what you've said so far, I don't know if I agree or disagree because I really don't know what you are talking about.
I believe government needs to stay out of religion. That doesn't mean that people in government cannot be openly religious or not religious.
I believe that people should be allowed to believe or not believe as they choose. But not allowed to force their beliefs on someone else.
I do not believe in teacher led school prayer, my kids got religion at home and church. But I do believe in a moment of silence.
I do not believe that God should be taken out of the public square.
Now if you wish to discuss any of those point or any other point state it directly and if I have time I'll reply.
At #2 you made an "idiot" comment about separation of church & state .
I replied at #30 in rebuttal.
You claim you can't understand? - Fine, we can leave it at that.
bttt
So was the shoe from post 2 fitting your foot too well!
By the way I see that once again you avoid clearly stated and precise positions.
RE posts #4 & 5. -- Dream on.
RE posts #44 & 45. -- Dream on.
I see the correction but this one makes as much sense as everything else you've said.
Take a chance sometime and lay out a clear position. It will be diffcult at first but I think you can do it.
You're making the mistake of equating religious sect with universal moral principles founded on theism. Moral absolutes based on religion are essentially the same in every monotheist religion, what to speak of Judeo-Christianity.
The "separation of Church and State" is a ficitious statement. Jefferson wrote it, but in a letter years after the founding of the country, and to a group of Baptists (IIRC) who were considered a minority religion.
Universal moral absolutes founded on religion has NOTHING to do with an established state religion, which is what the writers and signers of the Constitution wanted to repudiate.
I made a clear point at #30. You can't reply? Tough..
That the Founding Fathers were largely religious men is not in dispute. They did not, however, write their beliefs into our laws, despite ample opportunity to do so. Think they had reason?
" America is #1!!
#1 in Violent Crime #1 in Divorce #1 in Teen Pregnancy #1 in Voluntary Abortion #1 in Illegal Drug use #1 in Illiteracy in the Industrialized World!"
Yep, we're pretty much a scuzzy, rotten place. We deserve to be hated, attacked, and bombed. Since you seem to have so much in common with Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and now Linda Ronstadt, why don't you all get a room together...in Paris, say?
Let's say for a moment that I grant you that the founders wanted a christian nation. What do you think that means to me, or should mean to me, the non-believer, in the in the 21st century. Let's move this discussion out of the realm of endless quotes and high minded philosophy and into the practical. What is it you want?
Out of curiosity, how do you plan to legislate and enforce the schtick about coveting?
Well said. Government is bound to ---- up religion if you let it. Now that wouldn't break my heart because I don't care much for relgion, but the religious would do well to keep the government away from it.
>> Over the last century, we've seen that when government gets involved in social issues such as the family, divorce, regulation of vices, poverty, raising of children and many other areas, the end result is usually disastrous.
You bring up an interesting time-line. The introduction of the federal government power over social issues, once a preogative of the states, coincided with the introduction of the "Separation of Church and State" power to the Federal Government (also, once a prerogative of the states).
The states have little to be proud of when it comes to dealing with social issues. Think about how badly various states have screwed up welfare issues, for example.
I assume you're a religious person: Doesn't the thought of state bureaucrats being involved with or in your church scare the bejeesus out of you?
It already has. Covet is to aquire by trickery. We normally refer to it a fraud.
That seems kind of redundant with stealing.
Great read. Ummmm...I could use a translation of the relevance of Jeremiah 17 to separation of powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.