[Bobboau]

You've NEVER met a SINGLE Christian who supported stanch separation of church and state?
I mean you've got to expect a few exeptions, but in general, someone you could live with.

[Kazan]

You've NEVER met a SINGLE Christian who supported stanch separation of church and state?

i've met ones that claim they do then turn around and scoff at atheists who complain about the pledge, money, the boy scouts, etc

[Unknown Target]

Wow, why does every thread that Kazan participates in turn into an argument?
And before I leave this thread, I want to note that Kazan is probably the biggest bigot/opinionated/unaccpeting person I know or have ever had to talk to. And you can quote me on that.

[Flipside]

MMmmmmmmmmm... Boobies.........

[Kazan]

Wow, why does every thread that Kazan participates in turn into an argument?

because other people come into my threads and troll

And before I leave this thread, I want to note that Kazan is probably the biggest bigot/opinionated/unaccpeting person I know or have ever had to talk to. And you can quote me on that.

like that

[Bobboau]

so, they get defensive when you seem to go balistic over trivial things?
I can see how you could view them that way, but I can also see how they could view such actions as hostile, even if they are right.
they are trivialities, they are ornamental, symbolic, they are something you need to focus on after the more important social changes have been completed, because fighting against the community symbolism of the faith will only harden there resolve and push the 90% of the population that holds those beliefs onto there side.
what you are doing in this situation is tactically similar to rounding up random people in an enemy camp and shooting them, granted it isn't ethically anywhere near that, but you are attacking harmless symbols, the worse they do is make theocracy in the government seem more traditional than it is, you make them think you hate them (which is accurate) so they will in kind hate you, they will not help you on the more important fights such as gay rights, in fact they will equate separation of faith and government, equality of rights, general freedom, as an attack against there religion and the right to follow it, you're making Sean Hanitty's job easier, and you make my life harder by reinforcing the Atheist stereotype.

[RazorsKiss]

I'm a Christian, and I support separation of church and state.

In it's original meaning, and intention, as always referenced via the Danbury Baptist letter written by Thomas Jefferson.  Not, incidentally, as is often assumed, in any sort of law passed by any representative branch of government, any official policy adopted by anything other than judicial fiat, or anything resembling what it has since been twisted to mean.

Separation of church *from* state.  Which is both the original meaning, and intent of the phrase - as well as the "establishment" clause.

1998, Library of Congress information bulletin concerning the FBI's reconstruction of the (in)famous Danbury Baptist Association letter.

Complete treatment found here.

[Kazan]

bollocks bobboau - symbols aren't meaningless, and they view any attempt to stop their oppression as an attack on their faith no matter how you go about it - they are the abuser and they show the same psychology as a guy who abuses his wife.

PS: 74% of the US population is christian, 16% is atheist/agnostic

---------------


RazorsKiss explain what you mean?  Do you mean *completey* seperation of church from state - ie church doesn't interfere with state and vice versa?

[RazorsKiss]

Very large treatment on the subject found in the link at the bottom.

[Kazan]

Very large treatment on the subject found in the link at the bottom.

summary please - i'm not going to read a PhD treatise... though I notice you quote Rehnquest which makes my hopes for you drop

[Bobboau]

they view it as an attack on there comunity

[Kazan]

they view it as an attack on there comunity

no **** sherlock holmes - they are going to do that no matter how you go about it

they're used to getting their way - they're going to resent people who tell them that their way is wrong and that they're violating the rights of other people no matter how it's told to them

it's no different than the abusive husband when his wife stands up to him - the abuser tries to play the victim.


I lost my patience for holding the hands of people who supress my rights a long time ago.

[RazorsKiss]

Your loss.

Reading's good for you.

Forum dissertations make me ill - so I'm not posting one.

That's what web publishing is for.

Plus, I'm not very concerned about your "hopes", given the subject of the thread.  It was a disinformation countering post/link, no more.

The modern conception of the establishment clause bears no resemblance to anything written, or intended by it's founders.  The way it's bandied about as a complete 180 degree turnabout these days makes me sick.

As for "suppressing rights" - the same thing can be said for rapists, serial killers, petty thieves, and pimps.  Anything which "supresses" the rights of one set, or subset, merely affirms the rights of another set, or subset.  The constant harping of atheists that their "right" to do whatever they please supercedes my "right" to not have my family exposed to filth and obscenity really doesn't impress me - because, in essence, they're telling me that their rights supercede mine - the exact same thing they complain about "us" doing.

Rights {EDIT: Pertaining to civil/legal rights.  Rights are only unalienable, if, like the Declaration says, they are endowed by their Creator with them.  As a caveat, I personally disagree with the definition of "the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right.  Happiness consists, to paraphrase the Westminster Confession, in the glory of God.} are those guaranteed within the Bill of Rights, and it's amendments.  Even those may be amended - but please, if you feel that strongly, get it amended.  Don't just change the meaning of words to attempt and end-run around the amendment process.

[Kazan]

The constant harping of atheists that their "right" to do whatever they please supercedes my "right" to not have my family exposed to filth and obscenity really doesn't impress me - because, in essence, they're telling me that their rights supercede mine - the exact same thing they complain about "us" doing.

now wait a damn minute here - that's absolutely 100% bull****

that's totally unsubstantiable.

No atheist is saying you cannot keep your children from being exposed to "Filth and obscenity" (i assume you mean pornography, cuss words and other things you've been indoctrinated to believe are "bad").  NONE - zero zilch nada.  They're saying YOU cannot tell them that THEY cannot look at those themselves.

They're telling you that YOU don't get to use government as a tool to further your religion

[Kazan]

Rights {EDIT: Pertaining to civil/legal rights.  Rights are only unalienable, if, like the Declaration says, they are endowed by their Creator with them.  As a caveat, I personally disagree with the definition of "the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right.  Happiness consists, to paraphrase the Westminster Confession, in the glory of God.} are those guaranteed within the Bill of Rights, and it's amendments.  Even those may be amended - but please, if you feel that strongly, get it amended.  Don't just change the meaning of words to attempt and end-run around the amendment process.

The Declaration of Independance is not a LEGAL document of the United States government - it is a historical document predating the existance of the government
that makes it totally irrelevant to the secularism of the united states government and it's "creator" reference isn't legally part of our government.
You want a LEGAL document that was part of the United States Government under the Constitution?

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -- Article 11, US Treaty With Tripoli 1796

Rights are not limited to only those listed in the bill of rights - try reading the IX and X sometime. 

Nobody is changing the meaning of the words - the establishment and free exercise clauses quite clearly mean that government shall not promote or discourage ANY religion.  Try looking up the Lemon v. Kurtzman.

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

   1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
   2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
   3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with Religion.

If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[RazorsKiss]

now wait a **** minute here - that's absolutely 100% bull****

How... earthy.

that's totally unsubstantiable.

No atheist is saying you cannot keep your children from being exposed to "Filth and obscenity" (i assume you mean pornography, cuss words and other things you've been indoctrinated to believe are "bad"). 

Public nudity, even partial, is something we are taught is not good for children.  "I have a made a covenant with my eyes..."

Public profanity?  Strip Clubs with lewd advertisements on huge billboards?

Yes, it happens. and daily.  However, I'm not subscribing to any sort of policy that says the rest of society have to live by my rules.  I'd just rather they didn't do it publicly.  First, most of the behavior that accompanies "popular culture" is hardly doing sterling things to the family cohesion in America, for example.  Second, kids know waaaay too much, at way too early an age.  My wife, a public school teacher, has to deal with 6 year olds telling other six years olds that they want to have oral sex - in not so innocuous language.  She has to deal with classes where only 15% of the children have two parents. 

That's the sort of thing that "do whatever you want" moral codes lead you to.

So, go ahead, do what you want.  However, there's always consequences, here, or once you die.  If you don't believe me, that's your opinion.  Unfortunately, it's wrong.  Splutter all you want, but I'm just not interested past telling you that, I'm afraid.  You're not only belligerent, but you're both profane and crass - not to mention hopelessly cliche'd in your argumentation and your typical insistence that the burden of proof lies on everyone else but yourself.

I wish you well, but I've no wish to waste time arguing with someone with obviously no interest in either learning, or debating in any sort of earnest manner; who, furthermore has repeatedly stated that he has only contempt for religion, or any of its adherents.

Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism.  That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism.  I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.

[Bobboau]

atheism is about accepting only what you can plainly know, or more precisely, not accepting what you have no logical reason to, not self worship.

it's a philosophy that cares only about literal truth at the cost of self-importance. that does not make it immune to being twisted to this end, however.

well actually atheism is nothing more a lack in a beleife a divine, it actualy doesn't even discount things like an afterlife.

however I think you were talking more about the general class of people in the US who proudly call themselves such.

[Kazan]

Public nudity, even partial, is something we are taught is not good for children.  "I have a made a covenant with my eyes..."

hahahaahahaha how absurd-  you quote bible passages to me as if that were VALID LEGAL GROUNDS - guess what - it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to legislate the bible!

You are FORCING your RELIGOUS POSITION ONTO OTHERS?!  What part of that is diffuclt to understand?

You are forcing other people to adhere to your religion.   What you are taught is not neccessarily the truth - if SCIENCE can show that it's harmful - then you have something

Guess what? it doesn't, you have nothing

You can always cover your children's eyes!

Public profanity?

ABSOLUTELY ARBIRARY! yet again trying to force YOUR position onto others - "swear words" are completely and totally ARBITRARY and MEANINGLESS!  I guess you're not familiar with this part of the first ammendment called "Free speech" 

"**** man!!" is a lot less offensive than "you mother ate dog feces while fornicating with an equine!"

  Strip Clubs with lewd advertisements on huge billboards?

oh waaah... breats in a bikini! oh gnoes!!

Yes, it happens. and daily.  However, I'm not subscribing to any sort of policy that says the rest of society have to live by my rules. 

yes you are - you are in favor of forcing them, by law, to follow your religion

I'd just rather they didn't do it publicly.

and I'd rather you not pray in public as I find it an offensive excercise of arrogance that I don't want my children (when I have them) exposed to - you don't see me trying to pass laws against it

First, most of the behavior that accompanies "popular culture" is hardly doing sterling things to the family cohesion in America, for example.

not going to get any argument from me there... but you will get an interesting stastic pointed out

divorce rate of a demographic in the united states is directly proportional to how deeply religious they are - fundamentalist christians have the highest divorce rate, atheists the lowest (Source: The Fundamentals of Extremism, in turn citing academic works)

  Second, kids know waaaay too much, at way too early an age.  My wife, a public school teacher, has to deal with 6 year olds telling other six years olds that they want to have oral sex - in not so innocuous language.  She has to deal with classes where only 15% of the children have two parents.

You're not going to get argument from me there either - however a woman going topless in public has nothing to do this this.  The law about having to cover up breasts MAKES them more of a sexual object.  If you don't treat them as a sexual object then the problem disapears
 

That's the sort of thing that "do whatever you want" moral codes lead you to.

most of those children are, statistically speaking, the children of religious people.  most secular moralities are not "do whatever you want" - don't attempt to mischaracterize them with a straw man.  almost all secular moralities also consider it inappropriate to sexualize a child.

However, there's always consequences, here, or once you die.

when I die i'm dead... no evidence of anything beyond that

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION

come on... do it?  come on... evidence? lemme see it?

oh right.. you don't have it, just like every other christian on the planet - you have NO EVIDENCE

Splutter all you want, but I'm just not interested past telling you that, I'm afraid.

you're the one sputtering in arrogance and ignorance and a steaming pile of logical fallacies i'm afraid

You're not only belligerent, but you're both profane and crass - not to mention hopelessly cliche'd in your argumentation and your typical insistence that the burden of proof lies on everyone else but yourself.

haha argumentum ad hominem, Shifting the BOP

You assert that god exists, therefore the burdeon of proof is on you to provide evidence of such
I assert that, in the lack of evidence for god, that it is irrational and dangerous to believe in one - making the BOP on me be supporting the assertion that it's "irrational" (it is, per definition of irrational), and dangerous (already done too - see inquisition, crusades, etc)

and hell yes i'm beligerent - i'm going to be belligerent to anyone who is A THREAT TO MY FREEDOM

I wish you well, but I've no wish to waste time arguing with someone with obviously no interest in either learning, or debating in any sort of earnest manner;

the day you have something to teach me would be an impressive day indeed - i've argued with the likes of you for more than 8 years.. i haven't heard an original argument from the mouth of a religious person since the first 6 months of debating. 

You have no wish to "waste time arguing" because you know you don't have an argument that could hold a brick let alone water.

who, furthermore has repeatedly stated that he has only contempt for religion, or any of its adherents.

yes, i have contempt for anyone who is self-deluded, as you should too

Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism.  That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism.

non sequitur

PS there is a difference between "lack of belief" and "Belief in nothing"

I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.

argumentum ad hominem


You cannot even make a logically valid argument for why you refuse to argue - no wonder you refuse to actually argue something!

you're just another christianist bigot!

[Kazan]

atheism is about accepting only what you can plainly know, or more precisely, not accepting what you have no logical reason to, not self worship.

BINGO!!!!!!!

it's a philosophy that cares only about literal truth at the cost of self-importance. that does not make it immune to being twisted to this end, however.

double bingo!

well actually atheism is nothing more a lack in a beleife a divine, it actualy doesn't even discount things like an afterlife.

strictly speaking.. no it doesn't preclude an aftelife... colloquially speaking... yes it does

[Kazan]

Razor's entire last post was one big red herring too boot! he totally sidestepped the issue of the Declaration of Independence not being a legal document under the United States Constitution (since he tried to cite it to support his twisted definition of rights) and he totally ignored Lemon vs Kurtzman.

he couldn't even change the subject to a red herring without making a bunch of logical fallacies!

[edit]
He also invited me to visit his site to debate.

no going to happen

We'll debate on neutral terroritory - i'm not going to where he can hide behind the ban hammer when I start calling him on his logical fallacies.

[edit2]

i'm going to bed for the night