|
Author
|
Topic: Separation of Church and State
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 305 (265225)
12-03-2005 11:06 AM
|
|
|
In the thread {A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents} Faith said some things about the Separation of Curch and State that just are not true, and this quickly derailed the thread from the topic discussion and resulted in the thread being closed for a while. To recap this is where it started (excerpt):
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 3, Faith writes:
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous. The First Amendment, which supposedly codifies this principle of separation, says in its first clause that CONGRESS may not MAKE A LAW that ESTABLISHES a State Religion, that's all. We have no state religion. Congress has not made a law establishing one. The amendment has not been violated and the public schools cannot violate it because they are not Congress. Also, a state religion in the time of the Constitution meant a Christian denomination. Also, some public schools in early America taught their students from the Bible and from various Christian catechisms and confessions. If this were forbidden by the First Amendment it would have been prohibited at the time. But the second clause of the First Amendment says that CONGRESS may [also] NOT MAKE A LAW THAT PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Well, an argument could be made that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment to prohibit all teaching of religion in the public schools is really a violation of the Amendment, as they are interpreting the law made by Congress in the Amendment itself in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion by ordinary citizens in the public schools. I believe this is in fact what has been happening. So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent.
.
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 6, RAZD writes:
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous. Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history. What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others. What you cannot do is presume to teach that any religious {precept\concept\belief} has the same value in science class as science theory and the validation process of science, because they are fundamentally different (the main point of your thread I believe?). As a historical note, although I only have anecdotal evidence of it, the california schools tried to teach comparative religious classes, but christian fundamentalist parents stopped it. Sorry to see your thread closed, as I had more to say. May have to do that PNT to get there.  That would also allow me to pursue Phats comments further too. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.< !--UE-->
.
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 10, Faith writes:
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history. Obviously I mean TEACHING religion itself, and preaching it, not teaching ABOUT religions. Certainly that was obvious enough.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others. And this is what I discussed is the totally wrong result of the current misinterpretation of the First Amendment, as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America. As I said. Parents and a community should certainly determine curriculum it seems to me, but this only works against religion in practice it seems, not for parents who are FOR religious instruction in the schools. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005
. Very obviously you cannot have the teaching and preaching of any one religion in a public school as if that religion were true. The reason is that once you select one, you place it above all the others. That specifically contravenes the constitution. (It is also logically false to teach and preach more than one as true.)
... as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America. Past failures to comply with the intent of the constitution do not make them legal or binding or in any way more valid than now. That this occured in some areas (NOT in all) is neither here nor there on the issue of whether the constitution allows it. Racial discrimination also occurred in many places after it had been specifically excluded by the constitution. The ONLY way you can teach about religion that I am aware of that is in compliance with the constitution is in a comparative religion class or in historical classes -- social studies on the impacts of various religions on the history and development of culture and knowledge. Our founding fathers were well aware of the failures of the theocratic colonies to establish any kind of government that allowed for the equal freedom of others. By the time of the constitution each one of these colonies had stopped being a theocratic style government and had converted to a secular govenment. Faith in message 3 says:
So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent. The revisionists are the fundamental christians that keep trying to make America something it was not. It was NOT a "Christian Nation" and it was NOT designed to favor christianity over any other religion. This "tyranny against Christians" concept is just plain ridiculous and false to anyone that looks at it with open eyes: there is no discrimination against Christians, or the practice of their religion within any corner of the USof(N)A. NONE. The only "tyranny" is that you are not allowed to impose your faith on others, just as they are EQUALLY prevented from imposing theirs on you. The only "tyranny" is that you are not allowed to impose a tyranny of christianity on others, either in government, or in schools, or in public places. That is what freedom is about. That is what America is about.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 2 of 305 (265228)
12-03-2005 11:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 11:06 AM
|
|
coffee house
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:06 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 7 of 305 (265423)
12-04-2005 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
12-04-2005 2:03 AM
|
|
Re: You need to reread your history books.
That's not at all accurate.... and then you go on to substantiate my point, that in each case, where the colonies were originally founded on theocracies, that they had moved away from it to more open forms of government. LOL. The founding fathers KNEW it didn't work.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:03 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 305 (265424)
12-04-2005 10:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-04-2005 2:23 AM
|
|
Doesn't matter.
Well, it was once done in America and it wasn't treated as a violation of the First Amendment. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that when it came before the Supreme Court it was judged to be unconstitutional. Because something was done does not make it legal or give it any validity at all.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-04-2005 2:23 AM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 305 (265482)
12-04-2005 2:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
12-04-2005 2:38 PM
|
|
Re: Doesn't matter.
It shows that the supreme court didn't see it as unconstitutional?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 305 (265542)
12-04-2005 7:50 PM
|
|
|
From the other thread ... {Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance}
This is to move this discussion to the proper forum. Edited to be just the 1st ammendment and separation of church and state issues.
randman, msg 18 writes: Wrong, the whole concept of separation of Church and State is a Christian concept preached by Christians for hundreds of years prior to any more secular-minded person advocating the idea, and so the idea of religious and ideological liberty upon which the 1st amendment is founded stems from Christianity, not secularism.
RAZD, msg 22 writes: msg 18 writes: Wrong, the whole concept of separation of Church and State is a Christian concept preached by Christians for hundreds of years prior to any more secular-minded person advocating the idea, and so the idea of religious and ideological liberty upon which the 1st amendment is founded stems from Christianity, not secularism. Care to substantiate that the 1st amendment is so founded? Perhaps some documents by Thomas Jefferson or the others in their discussion of the 1st amendment? Some kind of link eh? or is this just another bald randman assertion?
randman, msg 28 writes: Care to substantiate that the 1st amendment is so founded? Perhaps some documents by Thomas Jefferson or the others in their discussion of the 1st amendment? Admin has requested we take this to the other thread, but I will say I've substantiated this a number of times. Jefferson did not originate the first amendment, nor the concept; nor did Madision. The idea of not having a religious establishment originated with the Baptists of Rhode Island and the Quakers with Pennsylvania and other Christians. That's just a basic historical fact which you could easily look up. They were following Anabaptist theology. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history and read the classic debates between Roger Williams and Cotton Mathers, or perhaps it was a different Cotton. Williams alludes to Anabaptist theology as opppossed to what Reformed theology had to say, but Reformed theology was eventually swayed by the Anabaptist concept of separation of Church and State, a term coined by them or revived by them. It was used by the Donatists as early as the 4th century. That's where Jefferson and Madison and those guys got the idea. Try googling Isaac Backus.
Randman, I don't disagree that concepts of separation of church and state originated much earlier in general, nor specifically with the establishment of colonies like the one Roger Williams founded, that was not my point. My point was rather that they are not the only source and not the only basis of the policy, nor did they define it as it was incorporated into the 1st amendment. This was the "Age of Enlightenment" where a number of liberal ideas were being embraced by large sectors of the population. This is where your logic breaks down: you assign the only source of these views to the anabaptists, that no one could come to the same conclusion from other sources, nor that the views could be extended to apply to more general conditions before being incorporated within the 1st amendment, especially by people that are known for more general, open, creative thinking on subjects like this. This last part is the most telling and applicable part. I asked you for specific reference to the 1st amendment and its framing, you have not provided that. So let's cover that deficiency eh? From What The Founders Believed About Separation Of Church And State (click):
We think that the results of this investigation will demonstrate that most of the important founders wanted and intended separation of church and state. We suspect that most of those who didn't agree with the separation principle ended up either opposing the Constitution, or publicly disagreeing with the separationist provisions of that document.
As far as the "other early Americans" they list
- Isaac Backus (your reference)
- John Leland (another baptist minister)
- Roger Williams (1st governor of what becomes Rhode Island, also a preacher, one who knew both sides of the issue?)
... ie - while these people can be thought of as influencing public opinion on this issue they are not the ones who wrote the 1st amendment, nor is the list confined to these people, they are listed as "other early Americans that influenced the separation debate" -- and that doesn't mean they defined it in it’s final form as used in the 1st amendment (which is what I asked for). Let's follow that link above to what "the most important founders" believed about separation of church and state:
James Madison on Separation of Church and State James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817. Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia. 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). Madison was a religious man and he was unconditionally against any encroachment of religion into government functions. From "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" linked above come these quotes:
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. That last line clearly can refer equally to a person of no faith as it can refer to one of a different faith. He also is clearly concerned, not just about the establishment of specific sect of Christianity, nor of a {general Christianity} but about "any other establishment in all cases whatsoever" ... including, of course, other religions.
George Mason's views on Separation of Church and State Few men had more influence on the shaping of our Constitution than George Mason (1725-1792). As a member of Constitutional Convention, Mason was an outspoken advocate for federalism and limited government. As a member of the Virginia ratifying convention, he proposed a set of amendments that later served as a model for our Bill of Rights. Of particular interest is Mason's commitment to religious liberty. Mason seems to have been a lifelong advocate of the rights of conscience, and worked diligently to end religious establishment in Virginia. Similarly, Mason played a key role in opposing Patrick Henry's 1785 Bill for the Support of the Teachers of the Christian Religion. In response to Henry's bill, Mason encouraged James Madison to author his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, then circulated copies of the Memorial throughout Virginia at his own expense. Mason's separationist commitments carried over to his advocacy of a Bill of Rights. In particular, his proposed amendments to the federal Constitution contain a provision that is closely modeled after the religious freedom provision in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and which explicitly mentions both "free exercise" and "establishment," the key subjects of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:
That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others (Robert A. Rutland, The Papers of George Mason, Vol. 3, p. 1071, 1119 (footnote).
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States, and a primary architect of the American tradition of separation of church and state. Like many of the founders, Jefferson was a prolific writer and frequently commented on both religion and Constitutional Law. Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the most important separationist documents of the eighteenth century. Constitution gives no power over religion to the federal government:
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 legislative 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 (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802). On the benefits of religious liberty:
"...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Notes on Virginia, 1785). From the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" Section II:
WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. These thoughts clearly move to a broad and general application of the separation of church and state, very much in line with the current interpretation embodied in the constitution by the Supreme Court. This is really no surprise, as the Supreme Court made specific reference to the concepts expressed by the founding fathers in reaching their decisions. An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html
The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion. The Free Exercise Clause has generally come to mean that one may believe anything, but that religious actions and rituals can be limited by laws that are passed for compelling government reasons. A law passed that is aimed at a particular religion or religions in general have been considered unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws must be neutral in regard to religions. The fact remains that your interpretation of the 1st amendment is false and based on false premises. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 22 of 305 (265670)
12-05-2005 7:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
12-05-2005 12:09 AM
|
|
Re: You need to reread your history books.
When there is one official religion and no allowance for others, when people are killed or run out because they do not conform to the religious requirements of the government, then yes, it is a theocracy. If you are not allowed to have other religious beliefs and that restriction is enforced it is a theocracy. the·oc·ra·cy n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed. It is no different than the Taliban in Afghanistan. Roger Williams left england because of religious oppression and people being burned at the stake for their beliefs He subsequently left Salem and Massachussetts for the same reasons, and then founded the colony that became Rhode Island, based on religious freedom. The founding father were well aware of this history and the failures involved as each colony moved more and more towards a secular government as they evolved. They were also well aware of the difference that religous freedom in other colonies made. They knew by example that separation of church and state was the only viable way to go. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*05*2005 07:39 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 12:09 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 9:36 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 305 (265898)
12-05-2005 9:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
12-04-2005 10:27 PM
|
|
One step at a time ....
before getting to your misrepresentations (or misunderstanding) of my positions, lets take it one step at a time: Do you agree that the quotes and positions noted in the previous post show that all three of these founding fathers quoted, Madison, Mason and Jefferson, held a position on the separation of church and state that is reflected in the end block of the previous post (and repeated here for your convenience):
An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html
The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion. The Free Exercise Clause has generally come to mean that one may believe anything, but that religious actions and rituals can be limited by laws that are passed for compelling government reasons. A law passed that is aimed at a particular religion or religions in general have been considered unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws must be neutral in regard to religions. A simple yes or no will suffice.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 10:27 PM | | randman has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-05-2005 9:57 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 32 of 305 (265909)
12-05-2005 10:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
12-05-2005 9:36 AM
|
|
Re: You need to reread your history books.
Who's example? Christians' example, right? The bad examples were theocratic Christian colonies, yes, but only because there weren't non-christian theocratic colonies in America. There were some good examples of Christian colonies (Rhode Island), true, but they also had other examples of secular colonies where the founding principle of the colony was economic and which also had religious freedom (as in no regulation). Conflating only the good examples with 'Christian' while ignoring the bad examples and the non-Christian good examples is logically false thinking that serves no purpose.
I am sorry, but there is a difference between mere religious persecution and theocracy. A theocracy is where the ministers or clergy actually rule over the state. The fact that a state contains religious persecution does not make it a theocracy. Your denial is understood, but it is not factual. Do a google on "theocratic american colonies" and you will find many results. This is one example, FROM: ADVANCE PLACEMENT AMERICAN HISTORY (click) (this would be a high school history course)
The New England colonies were founded as examples of pure religion, each was to "be as a city upon a hill." ... The colonial theocratic governments also sought to further the welfare of the populace by enforcing God's Biblical laws, thus strengthening the people's support for the government (respect of authority is required by the Bible, and respect for a government that can hang you is required by common sense). Here is another example, FROM: What else was happening during the settlement of the thirteen colonies? (click) (an interesting timeline of early american history justaposed with europe):
Religious dissident Anne Hutchinson, who had been banned from Massachusetts Bay in 1637 for objecting to its harsh theocratic rule, is killed by Indians in a settlement that would later become New Rochelle, New York. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay consider her death to be the result of divine intervention. And here is another example, FROM: Colonial America (click) (A portion of a book written by R. Walton, a Richmond Family researcher):
But the conservatism and shrewdness that were transplanted to all of New England were amplified in Massachusetts by exceptionally zealous, theocratic leaders. The only religious freedom they sought was their own; they severely persecuted Quakers, Baptists or anyone else who differed from their norm. Moral codes were strictly enforced and church attendance was expected. Despite all this, nearly all the colonists were superstitious. Witchcraft was punishable by death. This hysterical oppression known as witchcraft delusion lasted well into the mid-1700's and even later. Until they became better educated, people were still accused of "being possessed of evil spirits" and were put to death for witchcraft. There were colonies were founded as theocracies. There is no escaping this fact, nor the fact that the founding fathers were well aware of this fact and the problems and failures of these theocracies to provide the freedom that was their goal. The better colonies were moving away from these outright theocracies -- Christian Rhode Island came after the early ones and was a direct result of the failure of the Christian Salem and the Christian Massachussetts to be more open. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 9:36 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 11:18 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 33 of 305 (265911)
12-05-2005 10:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
12-05-2005 9:57 PM
|
|
Re: One step at a time ....
Did you read the quotes? Read the articles? Did you specifically note, btw, the extreme objection of all three to the teaching of christianity in school paid for by publid money? Talks directly to a position you advocated eh? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-05-2005 9:57 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: getting facts straight
no, don't you remember? communism invented christianity first! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 12-05-2005 7:52 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 36 of 305 (266009)
12-06-2005 7:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
12-05-2005 11:18 PM
|
|
Re: You need to reread your history books.
What I see is a use consistent with the definition in the dictionary and consistent with the use by other people in vast quantity. That makes your position untenable. What I see is that ONE bad example is enough for the purposes of serving as a bad example to the founding fathers. Are you denying that Massachussetts was a bad example of religious domination?
RAZD, people with agendas like to twist words for their own meaning. Glad you admit that. This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*06*2005 07:17 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 11:18 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 44 of 305 (266559)
12-07-2005 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
12-05-2005 11:18 PM
|
|
Re: You need to reread your history books.
Three flavors of colonies: - Secular commercial colony with no particular religion enforced or involved in government. Religious freedom existed in these colonies.
- Religious colony with no particular religion enforced or involved in government. Religious freedom existed in these colonies.
- Religious colony with government enforced religion. No religious freedom existed in these colonies.
What is your logical conclusion?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by randman, posted 12-05-2005 11:18 PM | | randman has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 47 of 305 (266592)
12-07-2005 9:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
12-07-2005 9:20 PM
|
|
OOPS! Try again.
Trust you to miss the obvious conclusion and reach for something that is (1) missing the point (2) obscurantist (3) irrelevant in the end Care to try a second time?
... were very much in the minority, and thus to claim otherwise is wrong. Especially when to claim that they did not exist at all is false. Especially when to claim that people never moved away from them to other colonies - and to both of the other types - in order to experience religious freedom would be false. Especially when to claim that all of this was not well known by the founding fathers is false. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by randman, posted 12-07-2005 9:20 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by randman, posted 12-07-2005 10:47 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 52 of 305 (266980)
12-08-2005 7:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
12-07-2005 10:47 PM
|
|
Re: OOPS! Try again.
Here's another set: Group 1 has {A} {B} and {D} Group 2 has {A} {C} and {D} group 3 has not{A} {C} and not{D} What correlates with {A} {B}? {C}? {D}?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by randman, posted 12-07-2005 10:47 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2