Ken Ham petulantly stamps his feet at reality, internet replies, "this is stupid."

[Chad32]

Wow. Are these fuck heads competing to be the most infantile, moronic, dishonest embarrassment for human beings ever?

We need a graph of Ham/Comfort/Craig's moron rating over time. Ham's line just spiked.

http://i.imgur.com/H9lxaYu.jpg

I think we're going to have to invent new words to describe what this guy is. I don't think the english language is equipped to deal with this level of fail.

[dyresand]

http://i.imgur.com/H9lxaYu.jpg

I think we're going to have to invent new words to describe what this guy is. I don't think the english language is equipped to deal with this level of fail.

Quick we need to contact the board of Websters dictionary to come up with a new word.

[YGninja]

You are misinterpreting the law and if you had any semblance of critical thinking you'd realise it.

Ah yes, the old "if you were smart, you'd agree with me!" ploy. Done poisoning the well, or do you just want to empty the whole bottle in?

Misrepresentation again, its becoming something of a tradition for you.

1: Separation of Church and state is not a law, it appears no-where in the constitution.

It is, however, present in the establishment clause, which is in the first amendment. Enough with the sophistry.

Where? Or do you expect to be believed on blind faith?

2: "wall of separation between the church and the state" was a phrase originally used in letter by Thomas Jefferson. The point was to support the Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The phrase was only ever used to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

Part of keeping the state out of the church's business is ensuring that the state doesn't begin privileging any one religion over the rest. Keeping the church out of the state is essential to keeping the state out of the church, or are you just assuming that the only religion that will ever be in the majority is the Connecticut Baptists? Why is it that you religious folk are so bafflingly sure that only religious parties that you agree with will ever see fit to meddle in the law?

That's special pleading, in case you weren't paying attention; expecting that only your religion will be allowed to meddle is a special case exemption based on nothing. And if you aren't making it, then you also aren't keeping your church protected, as your initial objection claimed, because you're offering no means by which that particular religious group could be defended if an opposing one began altering the government.
So which is it? Are you using a blatant fallacy, or are you saying nothing at all?

How many religions had churches at the relevant time period? For this reason your claim is a non sequitur. By 'church' they were referring to the Christian religion alone. The only objective was to keep the state from interfering with or controlling the Christian Church. There is freedom of religion for the people, and the state cannot meddle with the Church, but clearly this does not mean that the state cannot support or endorse the Christian Church specifically, as it has done throughout the history of the USA, until the modern era.

3: The establishment clause is again to protect the religion of the people from government interference. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This gives you no grounds to remove religious paintings from a majority Christian school. If the government were to do that, they would be breaking the law.

That's not what the legal precedent states, or are you just ignoring that because it's inconvenient? What's more likely; that the courts, who are composed of people trained to interpret this stuff, have it wrong, or that you do?

Did the courts object at any time during the 150~ years or so after the constitution was actually written when the state endorsed CHristianity, every school sung Christian hymns, learned from Christian textbooks, read the Bible, every college and university was founded as Christian, and the rest of the a-z i gave? Or for 150 years after the constitution did they do nothing, until the last half century, where they have been pressured to reinterpret the constitution?

Moreover, why are you assuming that you'll always be in the majority? History shows that you probably won't be, and when you're in the minority you'll be clamoring for the same protections you're saying don't exist, now that it's convenient. Equal protection for religions requires no favoritism.

No such assumption exists in me, but I think its fair to say that the law-makers had this assumption.

4: If you engaged your brain for two seconds, maybe you'd ask yourself why...


a: Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

Because it's a motto the US garnered in the midst of the red scare, to separate themselves from the godless communists? What was that you were saying, about engaging your brain?

That would be beside the point; why didn't the state think they were breaking the law?

b: The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

Which isn't all that's there. Have you ever told more than the first half of a story in your entire life?

Beside the point, this is also becoming a tradition for you to 'refute' something with mere diversion. The state still endorsed religion.

c: God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

And if it was Allah, would you be defending that, or would you recognize the appeal to tradition for what it is?

Sigh, another diversion. If the country were founded as muslim, and it were allah, your interpretation of the law would still be incorrect.

d :As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

Christmas is a secular holiday mostly, or at least it is now. You don't get to appeal to tradition fallacy your way around that.

What do you mean appeal to tradition? The context of the discussion is historical. We are trying to interpret the intention of people 230 years ago, during which time Christmas was exclusively a Christian holiday.

Whats more likely: that the very people who made this law as you imagine it, immediately went about breaking the law they just made, continually and repeatedly on a national scale for two centuries, during which no-one raised any objection? Or you have interpreted the law wrong?

I notice that nowhere in your list of options is the possibility that you are interpreting the law wrong from the beginning. Well, ignorance and confidence so often go together.

Sidestepping.....

[downbeatplumb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amend...nstitution

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm getting ugly wafts of His_Majesty.

[Faith No More]

There is freedom of religion for the people, and the state cannot meddle with the Church, but clearly this does not mean that the state cannot support or endorse the Christian Church specifically, as it has done throughout the history of the USA, until the modern era.

Clearly, the founding fathers felt differently.

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

[robvalue]

Uhhhhh.....

To give equal funding to every possible religion would require infinity dollars. Do you want that kind of raise in taxes?

[The Valkyrie]

I'm getting ugly wafts of His_Majesty.

Seems to be a lot of ignorance and arrogance in that one . . .

[robvalue]

Longer words, though.

[KevinM1]

Wow, does YGNinja not understand history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States

tldr;

The historical roots of the idea of separation between church and state go back to at least the mid 1600's. In the American colonies, the Christian population was split between Protestants and Catholics. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers made it a point for the government to NOT endorse a particular religion (or, in this case, a sect) because they felt it would divide the fledgling nation when unity was needed. Some leaders even felt that churches sanctioned at the state level was a bad idea.

Of course, some of the states did sanction an official church/religion, or had rules in place that led to an unofficial yet still costly (as in, taxes) establishment of churches, but those went away as time progressed and people expressed displeasure at the obvious corruption and cronyism it led to.

But, no, the United States has never been unified in its religious beliefs, even if in the early days everyone could likely be labeled Christian. Protestants and Catholics have a history of, uh, not exactly liking each other.

As for the rest, the first test of the separation between church and state happened in the late 1800's. The modern interpretation was given in 1947. What happened in the past may or may not have been considered a violation of the amendment, I'm not sure. I think it's safe to say, however, that it's natural for things to be interpreted in new ways as time progresses, so it doesn't really matter if public schools did sing Christian hymns or learned from Christian texts in the past. The Constitution is, rightfully, a living document, designed not only to be flexible via amendments, but through Supreme Court interpretation. The Founding Fathers were wise in creating an extensible document that could change to meet the needs of an unknown future. So, yes, things have been reinterpreted over the course of history. That's how it's supposed to work. And all that really matters is the present interpretation.

Regarding the national motto, despite it mentioning god, the Supreme Court has judged that the motto is more patriotic and historical in nature than anything else, and that it doesn't actively endorse a particular religion. I don't necessarily agree (if only because E Pluribus Unum is so much cooler), but whatever. It's not a hill worth dying on.

But, suffice it to say, keeping religion out of political affairs is not a new idea. There's a reason why the First Amendment is worded the way it is, and it isn't to simply protect religion from government.