RE: Ken Ham petulantly stamps his feet at reality, internet replies, "this is stu...
February 18, 2015 at 8:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm by YGninja.)
(February 18, 2015 at 2:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(February 18, 2015 at 1:52 pm)YGninja Wrote: Thats great, because like fat and faithless, you've not yet come up with an argument, which i am sure would be your first response, if it were that easy.
Ok lets put it like this. In the sense used by the constitution "church" is the catch all term for religious institutions of all kinds it does not refer to the buildings that religious ceremonies are held in.
You appear to arguing that the term religion should have been used rather than church to avoid confusion and to point out that it means all religions and not just Christianity, but as you are the only person that I have heard of making this error it is like asking for all laws be dumbed down just so they make sense to you.
I feel this requires a larger amount of work than America can afford. It may be easier to make you smarter but I am not sure that is possible, starved of oxygen as a child, the product of incest who knows why but you seem to have plumbed a level of stupid and I have encountered many intractable idiots since joining here.
Its part of the fun.
How do you know thats the sense in which it was used? There is no separation of Church and state in the constitution any way.
(February 18, 2015 at 4:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(February 18, 2015 at 1:45 pm)YGninja Wrote: The only claim i've made is that by "Church", they were most likely referring exclusively to the Christian Church, this is because Jews Have synagogues, Muslims have Mosques, other religions have temples, and the country was 99.9% Christian. I've fulfilled my BOP which is to explain why i think this is most likely. If you want to deny me, you inherit a BOP to explain why you think im wrong.
Aaaaand this is why I feel okay about ignoring this thread for as long as I have: the only person even attempting to form some kind of argument is an unrepentant sophist, content to play smug little semantic games, anything to safeguard the conclusion he's already come to and is unwilling to investigate honestly.
That said, the language regarding the law doesn't exclusively use the word "church" either: the treaty of Tripoli makes it clear that the US wasn't founded on the christian religion, and the establishment clause denies the establishment of a religion so what he's saying isn't even a good semantic argument.
No, the ToT says the US Government wasn't founded on the Christian religion. The establishment clause, again, protects religion from interference from Government. Not the government or any of its institutions from religion, which we've already established couldn't possibly be the case because all US Colleges and Universities were founded as Christian, schoolchildren sung Christian hymns from the very beginning, and the entire nation learned to read and write using the Bible.
(February 18, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Chas Wrote:(February 12, 2015 at 4:04 pm)YGninja Wrote: Where? Or do you expect to be believed on blind faith?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Quote: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.
Are you willfully ignorant or just stupid?
The first Jewish Synagogue in Colonial America was built in 1759 in Newport, Rhode Island.
Its called a Synagogue, not a Church. Y'know why?
church
tʃəːtʃ/Submit
noun
1.
a building used for public Christian worship.
