[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…You put 10 un thoroughly disciplined kids in a room…[/quote]
Sort of like these forums nowadays.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< I surmise ye know not what the word evil actually means. >>>[/quote]
And herein lies the ages old universal conundrum.
I will say again. If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then every single question of right, wrong, morality and hence politics is utterly devoid of objective content. Objectivity itself, in the epistemological sense, has been fiercely debated in the secular world since the days of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato.
The founders built their system of government on the assumption of such a supra human court and the further assumption, or at least hope, that it’s citizens would largely share this assumption. With that private jurisdiction in power there would be minimal need for public control of human behavior and thus government of the people by the people for the people was born. As this supra human court holds less and less private sway we see vast walls of volumes of new more intrusive, unconstitutional and DIVISIVE legislation.
The private consensus is almost gone and the public upheaval we are witnessing at this moment is the inevitable result. It takes no ivy league education, no expensive protracted eggheaded study to demonstrate what is pounding us on the forehead.
Yeah, even the least religious of the founders borrowed heavily from Christianity in their assessment of how best to set their fledgling nation in motion.
That whole show was good. How progressives have for many decades been patiently and shrewdly working to kill the founding principles of this nation by undermining the constitution which IS the definition of “United States”.
The principle of “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution: the first amendment.
Thomas Jefferson essentially felt religion was entirely a private matter, something that should be completely voluntary. A person can’t be coerced into respecting a religion, nor can they be coerced into disrespecting a religion. And remember, not encouraging a person to subscribe to a religion isn’t disrespecting that religion, it’s enabling a person to exercise their inalienable rights.
I feel quotes wont suffice, I’d rather make this statement: Thomas Jefferson wished for three accomplishments to be listed on his epitaph; authoring the Declaration of Independence, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and being the father of the University of Virginia.
People take that term, that letter, as a elaboration of the Establishment Clause.
Not quite, letters offer an elaboration of the First Amendment. The letters as well as the Constitution itself have helped Justices set legal precedents, precedents which eventually led to the Lemon test.
Very very good Push and exactly correct.
Once again and for the 100th time. Why can’t people just declare their disdain for this nation’s founding? The incessant attempt to contort their thought into anything even vaguely resembling modern dying America is disingenuous at best and downright revisionist propaganda at worst.
People can believe whatever they want, just don’t try n tell me it’s what this country was founded to be.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Very very good Push and exactly correct.
Once again and for the 100th time. Why can’t people just declare their disdain for this nation’s founding? The incessant attempt to contort their thought into anything even vaguely resembling modern dying America is disingenuous at best and downright revisionist propaganda at worst.
People can believe whatever they want, just don’t try n tell me it’s what this country was founded to be.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli? In article 11 it states quite frankly “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”.
Pushharder, I’ve read your posts and will be responding to them early this week.
I’m thinking that it would be a lot easier for the Beck haters to just say they don’t agree with his opinion and move on from there.
No?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
As you can see, Monsieur Gloves, there is no “principle of separation of church and state” in those words that the “conventional thinking” says is there.
One thing is for sure, if a Texas high school wants to begin a football game with a prayer there is NOTHING in the words of the First Amendment to keep it from doing so. In fact, for the federal government to forbid it from doing so is a gross violation of the free exercise clause.
Cuz…see…when/if a Texas high school student, faculty member, mascot, football player or whoever prays at the beginning of a football game or for that matter over the intercom at the beginning of the school day…they are not doing so based on a congressionally legislated law.
[/quote]
I think the interpretation of the first amendment here is that the public schools act as an extension of the government. Therefore if the school endorses something religious like prayer or at least something that isn’t tied to a holiday(christmas), its endorsement can be seen as imposing on the students’ first amendment rights, arguably. And, if I remember right about the coach who got into trouble for praying with his team, it was still okay for the players to pray together as long as the coach didn’t lead the prayer. So, I think it has to do more with the faculty endorsing something that is for the students that is a part of regular school(sports, drama, class, etc.) and not optional(prayer groups, meet at the pole days, etc). I guess it is because if the school promotes something like that where students basically have to be there if they want to go to school or play ball, it is seen as mandatory to some extent. I can see how you wouldn’t want kids to have a particular religion pushed on them by an authority figure, but most of the times the first amendment is brought up like this it is used for stupid stuff.