Are you for or against the separation of church and state?
| Poll: Are you for or against the separation of church and state? This poll is closed. |
|||
| For | 52 | 96.30% | |
| Against | 2 | 3.70% | |
| Total | 54 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
|
Are you for or against the separation of church and state?
|
 RE: Are you for or against the separation of church and state?
April 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm by ebg.)
Who will be doing the validating? And how do you ensure their validation isn't influenced by the beleive in say Islam or fire worship or ancestor worship?
 (April 14, 2013 at 5:56 pm)AgnosticAtheist(KM) Wrote:(April 14, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Tex Wrote: I'm for separation of church and state. I am not for separation of belief and person. A Christian senator that believes abortion is wrong should not have to put his belief aside for voting. However, a government is not a church and their respective duties should be split. Belief isn't blind. If the senator believes that it is a human upon conception (which, biologically speaking, is undoubtedly true) and wishes to protect it's life, no one in there right mind should fault the senator. If he believes its wrong because the bible says so, he needs to re-read his bible. It's not in there. You might be able to get it from Exodus 21:22-23, but that's quite indirect. Saying that he himself has the knowledge of why it is wrong is a much larger responsibility than trusting the experts.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
 (April 14, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Tex Wrote: Belief isn't blind. If the senator believes that it is a human upon conception (which, biologically speaking, is undoubtedly true) and wishes to protect it's life, no one in there right mind should fault the senator. When that same senator (as is often the case with pro-life politicians) votes to cut spending to social programs which help children in poor families eat and have shelter, then the beliefs of that senator regarding the sanctity of life are on display as hollow, revealing that the Christian man's religious imperative to dominate women is the true driving force behind the thin veneer of giving a shit about someone else's fetus' right to life. Ryantology Wrote:When that same senator (as is often the case with pro-life politicians) votes to cut spending to social programs which help children in poor families eat and have shelter, then the beliefs of that senator regarding the sanctity of life are on display as hollow, revealing that the Christian man's religious imperative to dominate women is the true driving force behind the thin veneer of giving a shit about someone else's fetus' right to life. Assuming the said social program actually helps children in poor families eat and have shelter and isn't instead just terrible distribution of funds, I agree that the senator's belief regarding the sanctity of life is hollow and therefore is not fulfilling his duties as a Christian. You're going to have to assume a lot more to say that it's just degradation of women though.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
It also depends on if the programs being cut are actually effective at achieving their stated goals.
Many of our good, Christian, pro-life Republican politicians seem to have it in their heads that the very idea of feeding someone else's children with tax money makes them parasites and moochers. They have an ideological distaste for the poor and their policies starve disadvantaged children every day. One must wonder how many of those starving kids were forced to be born because of good Christian policies which made it impractical for their mothers to abort them.
If the policies are inefficient, reform the policies or replace them with more solid ones. That is not what our good Christian Republicans have any intention of doing. 
I think that what people who are against separation of church and state fail to realize is that it protects believers AND non-believers. I can think of a damn many Christians who would be pissed if Sharia law made its way into the US government.
What is observable should speak for itself, the more God is displaced in this country the worse things have gotten. When I was growing up we didn't lock our doors at night and when my parents sent me and my sister to school, they never considered we would be harmed. I could go on and on, but I believe everyone understands what I'm saying.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(April 15, 2013 at 2:19 am)Godschild Wrote: What is observable should speak for itself, the more God is displaced in this country the worse things have gotten. When I was growing up we didn't lock our doors at night and when my parents sent me and my sister to school, they never considered we would be harmed. I could go on and on, but I believe everyone understands what I'm saying. Well... I don't understand. What does the separation between church and state have to do with that? 
Yes. You are an idiot and you make your superstitious drivel clear.
It does not change the fact that you are an idiot, G-C. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Are you for or against the separation of church and state?
