Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree60Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 27th, 2013, 08:10 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Yes you do....but we still tolerate you.
Funny.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 08:11 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
And Madison ("The Father of the Constitution") said that the intent was to SEPARATE Church and State.....

You don't think Madison knew what he was talking about? You somehow have a better insight into the intent than the man known as "The Father of the Constitution"?
So only Madison and Jefferson know the intent? And isn't it odd that only the two share your view, but actually they do not in principle, but on separation.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 08:23 PM   #33
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
There intent was that GOVERNMENT AND CHURCH SHOLD BE SEPARATE

THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT BECOME A GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT

nor

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT PREVENT THE EXPRESSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

LIMITS ON EXPRESSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION SHOULD BE PROHIBITED BY GOVERNMENT

People should be able to FREELY EXPRESS their beilief in a Pasta god as their faith recomends. Or a Creator God, or a Forgiving God, Or a Just God, no matter the name in which they call him/her, and if they don't believe at all, that is okay to be express also.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 08:58 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Then if that is true why did his ACTIONS do the opposite.

Yes, he believed in the ORGINIAL INTENT the same as Jeffereson


NO FORCED FAITH THROUGH GOVERNMENT.

NO LIMITS ON THE EXPRESSION OF FAITH.

In other words true academia.. OPEN FORUM tothe exchange of Ideas.

Jews can be Jews, and would not have to hide it.

Athiests could be Athiests and not hide it.

Christians can be christians and not hide it.

Muslims can be Muslims

Hindi can Be Hindi.

what ever can be what ever.

to EACH OURSELVES BE TRUE.

open exchange of Ideas everyone hears and can come to their own understanding.
An "open exchange" is one in which government neither hinders nor aids any of the participants.

If that is why you believe in then I am in full agreement.

However, you keep posting like you believe that the US government should aid religion over non religion....and within religion, Christianity over non Christianity.
Thanks from waitingtables
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 09:05 PM   #35
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
An "open exchange" is one in which government neither hinders nor aids any of the participants.

If that is why you believe in then I am in full agreement.

However, you keep posting like you believe that the US government should aid religion over non religion....and within religion, Christianity over non Christianity.
I agree so when a government says you can express here but not there, is hindering the open exchange of ideas.

Thus the congress shall pass no loas PROHIBITING THE FREE EXPRESSION.

But also, no one can say Nwolfe you have to worship This God:

TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 09:06 PM   #36
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Nor should government ever prevent you from expressing your beleif in this god:

TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 09:15 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
I agree so when a government says you can express here but not there, is hindering the open exchange of ideas.

Thus the congress shall pass no loas PROHIBITING THE FREE EXPRESSION.

But also, no one can say Nwolfe you have to worship This God:

Nope....when acting as a government agent expressing your ideas is the government AIDING one side or the other.

And that is prohibited.

You are free to express your ideas when you are NOT acting on the behalf of the government.
Thanks from waitingtables
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 09:23 PM   #38
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Nope....when acting as a government agent expressing your ideas is the government AIDING one side or the other.

And that is prohibited.

You are free to express your ideas when you are NOT acting on the behalf of the government.
Government should aid no side.

So government should not establish, nor should the government prohibit expresssion

if the Government ESTABLISHES that means EVERY ONE WILL HAVE TO SAY I WORSHIP (FILL IN THE BLANK____)

If government prohibits NO ONES expression, then they are not AIDING ANY FAITH.. just giving freedom to one and all.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 09:36 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Government should aid no side.

So government should not establish, nor should the government prohibit expresssion

if the Government ESTABLISHES that means EVERY ONE WILL HAVE TO SAY I WORSHIP (FILL IN THE BLANK____)

If government prohibits NO ONES expression, then they are not AIDING ANY FAITH.. just giving freedom to one and all.
but how do you define "government aid"?

if government has provided an organisation with money expecting that organisation to deliver a social service, then the organisation is operating on behalf of the government, and cannot push any religion while doing so. which means a church delivering a service using government money cannot push religion. what they do in their own time with their own money is their decision.

and if an individual is employed by government, say a doctor in a public hospital, or teacher in a public school, they are a government employee, representing the government for the hours they are at work, and are also required to aid no side. which means the teacher doesnt talk about creationism or lead a prayer.

"government aid" is interpreted broadly. i think thats a good thing.
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 27th, 2013, 10:00 PM   #40
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
but how do you define "government aid"?

if government has provided an organisation with money expecting that organisation to deliver a social service, then the organisation is operating on behalf of the government, and cannot push any religion while doing so. which means a church delivering a service using government money cannot push religion. what they do in their own time with their own money is their decision.

and if an individual is employed by government, say a doctor in a public hospital, or teacher in a public school, they are a government employee, representing the government for the hours they are at work, and are also required to aid no side. which means the teacher doesnt talk about creationism or lead a prayer.

"government aid" is interpreted broadly. i think thats a good thing.
If government puts Preference of Athiesm over Christiantiy that is aiding the Athiest faith.

If Governmetn puts preference of Christianty over atheism, then government is aiding Christiantiy.

But if Government allows all faiths to be expressed with the same vigor, it is not aiding OR hendering none.


What if a teacher says a creation prayer, or a Wiccian Prayer, or states that they believe there is no such thing as a God, that is a teacher expressing their own beliefs

it is no different than a teacher expressing there opinion on the Jacksonian democracy..

What this does is allow school to be AN ACADEMIC establishment.

Because if you force any thought to not be taught, then you have ended all academia.
Which is the open expression and discussion of all ideas.

Now if a Teacher says a Muslim prayer cannot be spoken for example, but the Creationist prayer is, THEN you have the state aiding a faith over another.

Last edited by TNVolunteer73; November 27th, 2013 at 10:05 PM.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
church, state



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seperation of Church and State Nwolfe35 Political Talk 26 March 11th, 2013 06:46 PM
The State Ruling The Church Tony Perkins Christianity 98 February 2nd, 2012 10:00 PM
Church, State, Constitution hillhopper Opinion Polls 42 July 26th, 2009 04:01 PM
religion church and state.... musica Religion 11 May 13th, 2007 05:40 PM
Separation of Church and State???? Jon Religion 17 January 9th, 2006 08:05 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.