The Separation of Church and State

[beenthere]

They've lived longer so they've experienced life longer----

As a senior nearing 70 years, I have experienced life longer. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Ahhh, but what have I learned through this longer life as compared to a 15 year old or even a 30 year old? That is what we should really be wondering. I will just say that I was born into Fundamentalism and I am now an atheist. Would you agree that I most likely have learned quite a bit through the years?

[Edwardo Piet]

I would think so yes

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Would you agree that I most likely have learned quite a bit through the years?

Mate I don't know you and didn't know you at 15, so can't say.

Ahhh, but what have I learned through this longer life as compared to a 15 year old or even a 30 year old? That is what we should really be wondering .

Actually I have very little interest in what you may or may not have learned. At 62, my life observation is that the most significant difference between an old fool and a young dickhead is about 50 years.

[Rhizomorph13]

Padraic,

Always the charmer! This is funny:

"Actually I have very little interest in what you may or may not have learned. At 62, my life observation is that the most significant difference between an old fool and a young dickhead is about 50 years."

I don't think I am near the cynic that you are but I do think that knowledge is only as useful as how it is used and am really not that impressed when someone knows a lot of knowledge that has no beneficial use.

Rhizo

[beenthere]

little interest in what you may or may not have learned---

My "uneducated guess" is that you have spent your life-time learning how to push buttons and enjoy it pushing very much. I'm not about to have that conversation with you. I would loose!

Somehow, we have gotten off track about separation of church and state though. I don't think our age matters with this topic, but our ability to understand what is going on with it might.

[Violet]

Hey Sae,

How's about you and me having a boxing match then? By your logic it will be fair even though I am a 35 year old male and you are a 16 year old female. After all some women are stronger than men so throw out gender discrimination. Some heavy people are weaker than lighter people so throw out weight class. Some older people are weaker than younger people so throw out age discrimination. So when we gonna fight huh?

Also, I'm pretty sure Meatball was makin' a joke when he said that ridiculous thing about the elderly but hey maybe he is that big of an ass. That wasn't the point you were trying to refute anyway.

Rhizo

I'm an agile little critter Unless you actively box as a pastime: I'm not too worried

You don't need hit points if you never get hit

I think I am a more capable wrestler though (I have more experience with the sport)... I weigh about 130 pounds (and am not really so strong)... but when you are agile and flexible enough to bring a person into a cradle, triangle choke, etc: you don't exactly need strength or weight For understanding, I can usually beat my father (55 year old man, who is at least 250 pounds and fairly strong, a surveyor and setnet fisher, once a wrestling coach and still occasionally wrestles), my brother (27 year old man who is at least 235 pounds, works out every day and surveys, setnets, and has been in the state finals twice.)

So I think I might someday start beating you in boxing... but as I have no experience with boxing: I'm pretty sure you would win in a match right now I also don't think that griping or tripping, or maintained physical contact is allowed in boxing?

---

They've lived longer so they've experienced life longer----

As a senior nearing 70 years, I have experienced life longer. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Ahhh, but what have I learned through this longer life as compared to a 15 year old or even a 30 year old? That is what we should really be wondering. I will just say that I was born into Fundamentalism and I am now an atheist. Would you agree that I most likely have learned quite a bit through the years?

Age is a measure of the time... it does not dictate what we have done with that time. More age means more time in which things can happen... but it must be understood that nobody experiences the same things at the same rates. Some people have an almost sheer rate of experience... still others flatline. People are so different from one another... we cannot accurately hit most people with a line of best fit... the only just way to consider people: is one at a time, individually.

That's my disagreement with an Age line... it is no more descriptive of a person than their ethnicity. I refuse to base my reasoning off of such a double-standard as Age, Ethnicity, Height, Weight, etc... because the law should be fair and unbiased towards everyone.

[rjh4 is back]

James Madison was the primary framer of the First Amendment (Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time but Albert never lets facts interfere with his rants.)

Madison noted:

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

This is why the government needs to keep any of your xtian shit out of public life. You bastards can't be trusted.

I think you are misreading the quote and, therefore, taking something from it that was never intended. You focused on "or that one sect might obtain a preeminence" and isolated it from everything else. From reading the sentence it seems to me that the part highlighted by you should be put in the full context of "or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" as I think this is the full thought. Neither the constitution nor this quote from Madison says that Christians, or any religious person, cannot or should not participate in government nor is there any indication that in participating in government, one should not bring along with them their convictions of what is right and wrong and make laws accordingly, assuming they do not otherwise conflict with the constitution. Everyone who participates in government brings along with them their personal beliefs, desires, etc. You included. So if the majority of people, or more particularly their representatives, think something should be a law, that is how it is. If we don't like those laws, our recourse is to try to convince a majority. Maybe you just want to exclude Christians so a majority of those left would think like you.

[Violet]

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

The bold is what you should be focusing on. This has been defied in the fact that if a senator or the like runs for office: they damn well better be Christian... cause we'll take a stupid Christian (see Bush?) ANY DAY over a brilliant atheist or agnostic.

That was the thing which the Congress foresaw, and their intent was to possibly avoid such a thing. Great work guys... o.o

[rjh4 is back]

This has been defied in the fact that if a senator or the like runs for office: they damn well better be Christian... cause we'll take a stupid Christian (see Bush?) ANY DAY over a brilliant atheist or agnostic.

That was the thing which the Congress foresaw, and their intent was to possibly avoid such a thing. Great work guys... o.o

Please explain how voting for certain people constitutes the government compelling people to conform to a particular religion. Is the government trying to force people to be Christians? I don't think so. That would be against the constitution. In any event, I would not want it (the constitution) any other way. Trying to force people to be Christians is counterproductive in my view because those who are forced probably do not believe anyway. Furthermore, even I see the danger in making laws that force people into a certain religion because the relative numbers might change and I wouldn't want to be forced into some religion. For me, that goes back to treating others as I would want to be treated.

[Violet]

This has been defied in the fact that if a senator or the like runs for office: they damn well better be Christian... cause we'll take a stupid Christian (see Bush?) ANY DAY over a brilliant atheist or agnostic.

That was the thing which the Congress foresaw, and their intent was to possibly avoid such a thing. Great work guys... o.o

Please explain how voting for certain people constitutes the government compelling people to conform to a particular religion. Is the government trying to force people to be Christians? I don't think so. That would be against the constitution. In any event, I would not want it (the constitution) any other way. Trying to force people to be Christians is counterproductive in my view because those who are forced probably do not believe anyway. Furthermore, even I see the danger in making laws that force people into a certain religion because the relative numbers might change and I wouldn't want to be forced into some religion. For me, that goes back to treating others as I would want to be treated.

Oh my magnificent Dotard... Did you truly create this part of the universe?



But seriously, have you *NOT* noticed the appalling lack of muslims, jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. in our government? Mirror that with 'separation of church and state', and note just how many of them are religious christians. It's ridiculous.