Separation of church and state.

[Still Blue in PDX]

Silly me, I commented on a Christine O'Donnell video on Youtube and someone told me that if I want to live in a country where there is separation of church and state I should move somewhere else.

:wtf:

[xfundy]

1. Was this a great country or what? n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

2. If we don't recognize the fundies as America's real enemy

that comment will turn out to be prophetic.

Theocratic xtians are the worst threat to this country and the entire world.

If ever there was a group worth fighting a war against, it's them.

[brewens]

3. I want a t-shirt that says something like, "your first amendment

freedom from religion rights, give you the right to keep your superstition out of my face!"

[Drale]

4. Remember

when you read You tube posts, people will say things they would never say to your face if they're identities are a secret. Trolls are cowards.

[Deep13]

5. Hmmm.

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802

[felix_numinous]

6. If that poster took high school civics

he or she would have a better understanding of this country.

[humblebum]

7. On Separation of C&S.

"The First Amendment . . . does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter."--William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306.

[trotsky]

8. Not surprised to see you on the side of the theocrats. n/t

[humblebum]

10. Not surprised to see you as an historical revisionist. A true

bolshevik. Douglas was a Roosevelt Democrat.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Again with the "trotsky" stuff?

Man, you just won't give it up even though he has explained politely several times to you that his name is in reference to something different. You're kind of a rude bastard, aren't you?

[trotsky]

13. Rude bastard?

Typical Christian, sad to say, from my experience. The nice ones are the exception.

[trotsky]

15. As Goblinmonger pointed out to you...

but which you will surely ignore in favor of more personal attacks based your incorrect interpretation of my username, that quote does not mean what you think it means.

[humblebum]

16. Where did I make mention of your name? I believe you were insinuating

that Douglas was a theocrat, which is ridiculous given his political background. And quit feigning victimization when someone toys with your user name. You do it quite often. Must've been Sam Trotsky, no relation to Leon. My mistake.
Referring to people as theocrats was a typical bolshevik accusation, regardless of the name of the person who made it.

[trotsky]

17. I made no insinuation about Douglas.

As has been pointed out to you, the quote does not mean what you think it means.

I am glad you are around bumble, to reinforce the negative stereotypes that people have of Christians. You are doing more to help scare people away from your religion, and for that I am very happy.

[humblebum]

18. Actually the quote means exactly what it says. There is no room

for ambiguity in such a statement. You have shown in the past that your grasp of history is superficial. And you complaining about personal attacks?! Please. I can hear the violins playing softly and sadly now.

[trotsky]

19. What is it that Christians always whine about when someone else posts a bible quote?

Oh yeah, CONTEXT.

What comes before the quote you cherry-picked? If only there was some Internet search function. Oh wait, there is!

"There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the 'free exercise' of religion and an 'establishment' of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute."

Isn't there something about bearing false witness in that book you purport to follow?

[humblebum]

20. first you accuse me of being a theocrat when all I did was quote

a Supreme Court Justice who was anything but a theocrat and now you are kinda rambling all over the place aren't you? And not making much sense either. Justice Douglas read that statement as a majority opinion on a case that tested separation Of C&S. You painfully ignore this part:"The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage...." And what is this about Bible verses?

[trotsky]

21. First, I didn't call you (or Justice Douglas) a theocrat.

So retract your false statement.

[humblebum]

22. Well, since the only statement I made in that post was the quote

from Douglas and since your only response was:"Not surprised to see you on the side of the theocrats.nt", I don't think it can be interpreted in any other way. BTW and FYI, I belong to a denomination that welcome gays, accepts gay clergy, and supports gay marriage. We are busy forcing that theocracy stuff on everyone.

[trotsky]

24. But I didn't call you a theocrat.

So retract your statement. Very simple. Show how "Christlike" you can be.

[humblebum]

28. Did I say you used those exact words? No. If I had, I would have used

quotation marks. As it is, I paraphrased and quite correctly so. Nothing to retract. Your statement is what it is.

[trotsky]

30. "first you accuse me of being a theocrat"

Those are your exact words. It is a false statement. I did not accuse you of being a theocrat. It is a pity you are not Christian enough to simply retract your false accusation.

[humblebum]

32. You are conducting a vacuous argument. nt

[trotsky]

33. And you bore false witness. n/t

[humblebum]

34. I think your original statement stands on its own for both

Justice Douglas and myself.

"Not surprised to see you on the side of the theocrats. n/t" - Those are the "exact words" I was speaking of.

[trotsky]

36. Yup, those are my *exact* words.

And they do not call you a theocrat. They say you are on their side, which is not the same thing.

False witness. One might expect more from a self-proclaimed Christian, but I've dealt with enough to know there are plenty of hypocrites in the club.

[humblebum]

38. Nothing in Douglas' opinion favored a theocratic viewpoint, but on

that alone you based your accusation. Same old crap from you.

[trotsky]

41. You're desperately trying to change the focus now.

My comment said nothing about Douglas, only about YOU.

You bore false witness. You broke a commandment. You continue to do so. You could prove right now what an upstanding, moral, "Christian" guy you are by apologizing for your false accusation. But you won't. It OBVIOUSLY bothers you since you can't stop replying to me, so I'm willing to string this out as long as possible so everyone gets to see what an example of "Christian" behavior you provide.

Let's keep this kicked!

[humblebum]

42. And you are desperately trying to ignore the obvious. And your

comment definitely pointed to Douglas since was the only reference I made. You have more in common with trotsky than you realize.

[trotsky]

44. So you bear false witness...

and you can't stop personally attacking me.

Why can't you be Christian enough to retract your accusation and apologize? Where is the Christ-like behavior?

[humblebum]

45. I think you need to take a good hard look in the mirror, son.

You have been in denial since you first post, which was an absolutely ridiculous, irrational deduction and also one of your classic personal attacks.

[trotsky]

46. Then please join me in a close look at that first post!

Which consisted of just one sentence:

Not surprised to see you on the side of the theocrats. n/t

It was in response to YOUR post, which was a single out-of-context quote from a Supreme Court Justice. You wielded this quote as a weapon to try and attack the idea of absolute separation of church and state - thus allying yourself with the theocrats who do not think the separation of church and state is an actual principle of our government. You cherry-picked a quote from a non-theocrat (William O. Douglas) in order to defend a theocratic position.

Let's go back to my one-line post again:

Not surprised to see you on the side of the theocrats. n/t

Please indicate exactly what part of this sentence holds your accusation to be true - namely, that I called YOU, personally, a theocrat. Failing that, I eagerly await a proper "Christian" response of an apology and retraction. Show me what a decent person a Christian can actually be, humblebum. I am giving you one last chance.

If, however, you continue to bash me and deny you made a false accusation, I'm more than willing to keep posting to this thread and exposing your behavior for what it is. The more people that see exactly the kind of person you are, the better.

[GoneOffShore]

48. You're asking for something that will never happen.

[humblebum]

50. You are making wild inferences without any logical basis. I studied that case and opinion

long ago and am quite aware of Douglas' political bent and in particular this opinion. I chose that quote because it sums up the decision quite well. What you read into the post, I have no control over, but I can assure you that your accusations are unfounded. Nowhere did I show ANY favor for theocrats or theocracy. I will stand by my accusation. It would be virtually impossible to support theocracy without being a theocrat. You are doing nothing but 'dumpster diving'. You made a ridiculous inference.

[trotsky]

51. I notice you STILL cannot point out where I called you a theocrat.

FAIL

It would be virtually impossible to support theocracy without being a theocrat.

(NOTE: I didn't say you "support(ed) theocracy," either. If it weren't for strawman arguments you'd have nothing to say.)

And bullcrap. I can support the Packers when they play the Cowpies even though I am not a Packers fan (and hate the Packers, actually), because I hate the Cowpies more. Supporting a group or their position does not make you a member of that group. That is your failure. That is why you cannot escape the trap you got yourself in.

You state you aren't a theocrat, and I am inclined to believe you, but your initial posting on this thread was to cherry-pick a quote out of context to support their position. That's what I noted, and until you can see that distinction and "man up" by apologizing for your baseless accusation, I will go right on humiliating you.

[humblebum]

52. I think I just did and i think I have proven it. It's far too obvious to deny.

As far as I'm concerned you've already buried yourself. You have made so many wild, unsubstantiated accusations from the get go that all I can do is shake my head. When you accuse someone of supporting theocracy, it only stands to reason that they are a theocrat if what you say is true. There is no partial theocracy. It either is or is not.

[trotsky]

53. You couldn't be more wrong.

You haven't proven a thing. I have demonstrated your accusation to be totally baseless. You have not been able to counter a single point I've made.

I thought that just once, if given a chance, you might NOT act like a horrible Christian. But that's the one thing I was wrong about.

I am very happy to keep this thread kicked and keep your horrid behavior on display. Let's keep it going please!

[GoneOffShore]

54. I'm happy to kick it as well.

I've watched our honorable friend back pedal, obfuscate, move goal posts, prevaricate and waffle for awhile now.

You've always managed to "return the serve" and always have scored, whereas the return shot is either a fault or a net cord.

Your usual style is an "ace" though your opponent always appeals to the ref in the "high chair" that your response is out of bounds.

[trotsky]

57. And all it would take is a simple...

"I'm sorry, I interpreted your sentence incorrectly."

And that would be it.

We are lectured incessantly about how Christians are supposed to be more moral, more upstanding, more decent than us lousy atheists, and here's a chance for a self-proclaimed Christian to show just what a noble creature he can be - and he shits all over the chance. Turn the other cheek? Love thy neighbor? Meaningless phrases even for the ones who claim to follow the man who allegedly said them.

[humblebum]

55. Well let's see. I took a moderate quote from the legal majority opinion of a

moderate Supreme Court Justice and the quote was representative of the entire opinion because all parts of legal opinions must dovetail together. The result: you accuse me of being a theocrat by supporting theocracy. Yep. That's logical so far. The rest of your posts have mainly been filled with strawmen and Christian bashing. Sounds about right considering the source. Them there violins seem to getting louder all the time!

[trotsky]

56. Retract and apologize.

I never called you a theocrat.

[humblebum]

58. I'm glad to see that you retract and apologize. I accept your apology. nt

[trotsky]

59. Retract and apologize.

I'm waiting. Show me what a Christian can be like. Change my opinion that they tend to be rude obnoxious hypocritical assholes.

[Goblinmonger]

26. I call bullshit.

You said "A true bolshevik." You can blather all you want about whatever backpedal you want, but it was pretty clearly a dig at the username.

And if ANYONE refers to ANYONE ELSE as a theocrat, they are a bolshevik? what if the person really is a theocrat?

And in trotsky's defense, he isn't feigning victimization. I'm the one that made the comment. You are the one who makes that reference after being told it isn't correct at least a handful of times. Why don't you quit being a dick?

[humblebum]

31. I guess you can call it anything you want, life goes on. nt

[Goblinmonger]

11. Shocked, I tell you, shocked.

So do you think that the quotation you gave supports the point of view of the YouTube poster referred to in the OP? Of do you think you could actually come out and say that the view that the this is a Christian nation is a flawed one. I've already put my money on which side you'll come down on.

[humblebum]

23. I have never said this is a Christian nation. The point that cannot be denied

is that it is a majority Christian nation. It is not a Christian nation, but it is a free nation and those freedoms are well articulated in the First Amendment. Freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly ...

[Goblinmonger]

25. The person in the OP said

"if (you) want to live in a country where there is separation of church and state (you) should move somewhere else."

Then you posted what you did.

My question still is: what's the point of what you posted? Do you agree or disagree with said YouTube poster?

[humblebum]

29. Of course not, but if it is Separation of C&S being discussed,

a comment was made.

[onager]

37. More to the point, from the same case...

The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion - except for the sect that can win political power. - Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting opinion, Zorach v. Clauson

[laconicsax]

39. Good to see you can quote-mine with the best of them.

I wonder what the context of that quote is. I'll just go read the whole paragraph you excerpted.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/306/case.html

Moreover, apart from that claim of coercion, we do not see how New York by this type of "released time" program has made a law respecting an establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1; McCollum v. Board of Education, supra. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

(emphasis mine)

The fun thing about the Internet is that you can search for the exact text of the excerpt you provided and find http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage11.html">this page on a site dedicated to promoting the notion that the US "was founded by people led by G-D." The quote you lifted is at the bottom of that page. I say you lifted it, because the entirety of your post is there, complete with the misspelling of the case name.

I take back what I said about you being good at quote mining--you just copied someone else's work, which seems to have been copied from yet another source, a search for which led me to http://www.whateveristrue.com/heritage/">a site calling Separation of Church and State a communist idea...Now where have I heard that type of argument before?

[humblebum]

40. You are pretty good at mining yourself except the entire opinion was already stated here.

But this part seems to be ignored in your attempt to change the interpretation: "The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage...." Douglas was very precise. As far as separation being a communist idea, the concept goes back many centuries before that.

[laconicsax]

49. I ignored the part I put in bold?

You know--this part?

There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute.

You quoted half of the last sentence: "The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage...." The rest, as I'm sure you know is "permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute."

[Enthusiast]

9. Fundies would subvert

the constitution to promote their specific brand of religion.

[jeepnstein]

14. I just got off the phone...

with a colleague who was discussing some issues surrounding a campaign we're working. He made a comment about Upton Sinclair predicting that eventually the country would be taken over by people with a Bible in one hand and a flag in the other. My response, "Yeah, and they won't understand how to use either one." He knows where I stand on that topic and that I consider it off-limits in the campaign arena.

Many of the posters here disagree with me strongly on the topic of religion. The thing is, I'm even more dedicated to separation of church and state than most of them. My reasoning may be different but our goal is the same. If a particular brand of religion becomes an organ of the state it will be bent to suit the state's purpose. That part about giving to Caesar what is his and God what is His still applies.

Most of the folks seeking to establish a "Christian Nation" choose to ignore this clear and concise direct order out of the New Testament. You can find this same topic handled in the exact same way in 1 Peter and Hebrews as well. I'm kind of thinking that means they consider the topic to be fairly important.

Romans 13:1-3 "1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong."

[Goblinmonger]

27. Jefferson was on your side.

And I can agree with what he said. He wanted the wall of separation to not only protect the government from religion but to protect religion from the government.

[Still Blue in PDX]

35. Well said. nt

[Enthusiast]

43. Fellow Browns fan,

I fear those seeking to establish a Christian nation will be only too happy to 'submit to governing authorities' once it is of the right wing brand with big emphasis on a war with Iran and what they perceive as a move toward Armageddon.

Many of these idiots actually see President Obama as the anti-Christ. They will believe coming from a source they trust no matter how ridiculous it sounds to us.

[GoneOffShore]

47. Which O'donnell video ? - Sounds like time for a pile on

in the comments section

[Still Blue in PDX]

60. It was the one where she said, "I'm you," or something like that.

There are now so many on Youtube that I'm not sure which one has my comment.

I have friends who are Witches and who seem much more intelligent and well-read than many of Republican friends. I refrained from putting that in my comment, though.