No stars or angels on a Christmas tree, that is religious symbolism.

#76
#76
Ed12111 said:
The Taliban is an excellent example of the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure you understood the point, and if you did, you failed to express your understanding. Consider a second attempt; preferably, one that adds something useful to the discussion.
 
#77
#77
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
You ever checked out the street design of Washington DC? Or the Masonic Temple in regards to the WH? Or the banking industry and the main country its in and the flag they fly? Or the dollar bill? Or who FDR got advice from? Masons are just a smoke screen. The ships didn't just disappear when France went after them ... they didn't just vanish ... they went somewhere.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:
 
#79
#79
fl0at said:
I'm not so sure you understood the point, and if you did, you failed to express your understanding. Consider a second attempt; preferably, one that adds something useful to the discussion.
Click to expand...

I understood your awful contrived counter-point.
 
#83
#83
Ed12111 said:
Good. Now I know I'm right.
Click to expand...

Again, deflection and a dismissive attitude. Is this all you are capable of, or are you also good at bratty behavior?

My point, to clarify, for you, Ed, was that direction toward a single religion, (which has NOTHING to do with separation of church and state) by a single nation, results in imposition of discrimination against all things, all things, Ed, not favorable in the light of the "one" religion.

The fact that the Taliban exhibited zero separation of church and state in Afghanistan would not have led to the destruction of the Buddhist statues, IF there had been more than "one" favorable religion.

Like I said, I am not convinced you understood the point. Otherwise, you would have provided something useful to the discussion, instead of your traditional dismissive and snobby behavior.
 
#84
#84
fl0at said:
Again, deflection and a dismissive attitude. Is this all you are capable of, or are you also good at bratty behavior?

My point, to clarify, for you, Ed, was that direction toward a single religion, (which has NOTHING to do with separation of church and state) by a single nation, results in imposition of discrimination against all things, all things, Ed, not favorable in the light of the "one" religion.

The fact that the Taliban exhibited zero separation of church and state in Afghanistan would not have led to the destruction of the Buddhist statues, IF there had been more than "one" favorable religion.

Like I said, I am not convinced you understood the point. Otherwise, you would have provided something useful to the discussion, instead of your traditional dismissive and snobby behavior.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that. Of course, that "point" has zero to do with the topic. If I wanted to be snobby or condescending I would have done something with "I agree with GSVOl".
 
#85
#85
Ed12111 said:
Yeah, I got that. Of course, that "point" has zero to do with the topic. If I wanted to be snobby or condescending I would have done something with "I agree with GSVOl".
Click to expand...

Gs has a point, here. Do you think that the Constitution means an explicit separation of church and state, or more to the fact that it is a means to keep the church from influencing the state, and vice versa?

Oh, and it has everything to do with the topic. Re-read droski's point about this country not being founded purely for the Christian belief. It was in response to other posts made to the contrary.
 
#86
#86
fl0at said:
Gs has a point, here. Do you think that the Constitution means an explicit separation of church and state, or more to the fact that it is a means to keep the church from influencing the state, and vice versa?

Oh, and it has everything to do with the topic. Re-read droski's point about this country not being founded purely for the Christian belief. It was in response to other posts made to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I like your guy Jefferson's wall of separation.
 
#89
#89
Ed12111 said:
? You don't remember referring me to a little guy named Thomas Jefferson in another thread?
Click to expand...

If I am the one that referred you to Jefferson, I seriously question the educational system in this country.

I was not questioning your statement, I was in absolute shock and dismay at your statement. I know inflection is often lost in text, so allow me to, once again, explain my intent. Here goes:

My guy? Myyyyy guy? MMMMYYY guy? Is he not your guy as well?
 
#91
#91
fl0at said:
If I am the one that referred you to Jefferson, I seriously question the educational system in this country.

I was not questioning your statement, I was in absolute shock and dismay at your statement. I know inflection is often lost in text, so allow me to, once again, explain my intent. Here goes:

My guy? Myyyyy guy? MMMMYYY guy? Is he not your guy as well?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna try and be nice. What are you babbling on about?

1. Refer does not mean introduce.
2. The Hell does "my guy" mean? Me and him aren't "boys" and I don't think he's the perfect man. Does that mean he's not my guy?
3. I just used a principle of his as something I agree with, so if you're trying to say I hate him....?
4. Calm down buddy.
 
#93
#93
Ed12111 said:
I'm gonna try and be nice. What are you babbling on about?

1. Refer does not mean introduce.
2. The Hell does "my guy" mean? Me and him aren't "boys" and I don't think he's the perfect man. Does that mean he's not my guy?
3. I just used a principle of his as something I agree with, so if you're trying to say I hate him....?
4. Calm down buddy.
Click to expand...

1. The meanings might be different. If I give you a referral to a doctor, it usually means that is the first time you've seen him/her. In the terms of medicine, it is often an introduction that cannot be made on ones own, as it often involves seeing someone outside one's primary care provider.

2. I don't know, you are the one that said "my guy Jefferson." You tell me. I would have used "our guy."

3. No, not trying to say you hate him, at all. Again, I would have used "our guy." I too like his views on religion.

4. You can be a bit of an asshat at times. Sorry for being one myself. I tend to ignore old adages, specifically the one about fire with fire.
 
#94
#94
Ed12111 said:
How could I forget.
5. gsvol never has a point.
Click to expand...

I'd say he always has a point. He isn't mindless, not by a long shot. His points, however, are often... for a specific subset of the population.

His point about separation of church and state, however, is one that I wanted to argue with, on context alone. But he is right. The intent was never complete separation.

At least, I don't think their point was complete separation. Otherwise, so many of our traditions wouldn't include religious pretext.
 
#95
#95
fl0at said:
1. The meanings might be different. If I give you a referral to a doctor, it usually means that is the first time you've seen him/her. In the terms of medicine, it is often an introduction that cannot be made on ones own, as it often involves seeing someone outside one's primary care provider.

2. I don't know, you are the one that said "my guy Jefferson." You tell me. I would have used "our guy."

3. No, not trying to say you hate him, at all. Again, I would have used "our guy." I too like his views on religion.

4. You can be a bit of an asshat at times. Sorry for being one myself. I tend to ignore old adages, specifically the one about fire with fire.
Click to expand...

1. Refer Refer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2. OK
3. His views on religion( at least his wall of separation) seem to contradict your earlier views.
4. Remember, I usually have 6 or 7 people arguing with me trying to "get me".
5. I stand by this.
 
#96
#96
fl0at said:
I'd say he always has a point. He isn't mindless, not by a long shot. His points, however, are often... for a specific subset of the population.

His point about separation of church and state, however, is one that I wanted to argue with, on context alone. But he is right. The intent was never complete separation.

At least, I don't think their point was complete separation. Otherwise, so many of our traditions wouldn't include religious pretext.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get. There is no founders intent. This nation was formed by many people a lot of whom had very different ideas. Not to mention, the great amount of change in the past couple hundred years.
 
#98
#98
Ed12111 said:
1. Refer Refer - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2. OK
3. His views on religion( at least his wall of separation) seem to contradict your earlier views.
4. Remember, I usually have 6 or 7 people arguing with me trying to "get me".
5. I stand by this.
Click to expand...

1. Yea, neither of those dispute the idea of introduction. If I refer you to the works of Sir Terry Pratchett, would it be your first time reading? What if I refer you to the works of David Williams? First time? Referral does not necessarily mean that is not your first experience with the subject, and in my life, it never means such. Different worlds, I suppose.

2. Good.

3. Not at all, at least I don't think so. Dive deeper, and I'll try to garner your meaning. Refer me, as it were, to your line of thinking here.

4. Just me, today. Most people aren't trying to "get you." The weight of a man is humility. My goal is not to "get you," but have a dialogue.

5. I laughed at this, audibly. It was funny.
 
#99
#99
Ed12111 said:
This is what I don't get. There is no founders intent. This nation was formed by many people a lot of whom had very different ideas. Not to mention, the great amount of change in the past couple hundred years.
Click to expand...

Intent in the legal meaning, not in the "ulterior motive" sense of the word. Though I'd probably argue that the founders had a bit of both in mind.

Their purpose, or intent, was to develop a nation that could change. This is why the Constitution was intended as a living document, able to be changed as the country desired. Difficult, yes, but not impossible.
 
#100
#100
fl0at said:
Intent in the legal meaning, not in the "ulterior motive" sense of the word. Though I'd probably argue that the founders had a bit of both in mind.

Their purpose, or intent, was to develop a nation that could change. This is why the Constitution was intended as a living document, able to be changed as the country desired. Difficult, yes, but not impossible.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm referring to the idea that people can point to any one topic (taxes, Separation of church and state, anything really) and claim it's what the founders wanted. The founders had differing views on everything. That said, Jefferson's wall of separation was meant as a two way wall. Some people claim the separation of church and state was meant to keep state out of church, but that's not what Jefferson wanted.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top