My take on Barack Obama's Election

[Dibs]

I just used that because it's the preferred terminology of liberals. Equally, there is no separation of (or from) church and state.

 

It's a poorly and extremely loosely interpreted term coming from a letter one of our founding fathers (TJ) wrote on an entirely different topic. Over time it was misinterpreted in order to please the hippies.

 

And yes, it does matter. Greatly. I'm not very religious, but I like to keep liberals from re-writing history because they don't like the word God. It's absurd.

Seems to me that because of that dislike you have changed the what was meant by the separation of church & state.

The church does not have any direct say in how the nation is run.....and the state does not have any direct say in how the churches are run(both within reason).

There is a definite separation of church & state compared to nations that do not have a separation of the two.

 

Your point about re-writing history, though valid, only detracts from the point that was being made.

[murra]

The whole pledge of allegiance thing is just a dumb argument from both sides of the fence. Who gets hurt if we leave "god" in the pledge? Nobody. Who gets hurt if we take "god" out of the pledge? Nobody.

 

But I'm unclear on something, are you suggesting that values from religious texts ought to be included in our legal system? That opens up a whole can of worms, seeing as the United States has no official religion.

 

The principle of removing "god" from the pledge is much more harmful than you're grasping. It's a start to the concluding perceived political correctness and morons who think we have a right to privacy and whatnot.

 

About the religious text thing...I don't know what you're talking. At all. I didn't mention using religious texts in our legal system.

[murra]

Seems to me that because of that dislike you have changed the what was meant by the separation of church & state.

The church does not have any direct say in how the nation is run.....and the state does not have any direct say in how the churches are run(both within reason).

There is a definite separation of church & state compared to nations that do not have a separation of the two.

 

Your point about re-writing history, though valid, only detracts from the point that was being made.

 

Yeah. That's a different situation. As I mentioned previously, the only separation would be that Americans do not have a national region. We still hold the right to be religious. We can each believe what we want. And now liberals are telling us that this isn't so. They're trying to tell us that kids praying in school should get suspended. FOR PRAYING?? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.

 

Things like that truly upset me.

[Dibs]

Yeah. That's a different situation. As I mentioned previously, the only separation would be that Americans do not have a national region. We still hold the right to be religious. We can each believe what we want. And now liberals are telling us that this isn't so. They're trying to tell us that kids praying in school should get suspended. FOR PRAYING?? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.

 

Things like that truly upset me.

I understand......but you have diverted what was a good & interesting comment. None of those things were mentioned or implied until you brought them up.

 

Below is what was said.....which you seemed to garner some extra meaning from. SATM was simply stating that in the US you are lucky that there is a separation of C&S.

It's certainly not a "modern" document by any stretch, and a large reason that the Middle East has failed to become modern itself is that it bases its laws and regulations on its religion. Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

The principle of removing "god" from the pledge is much more harmful than you're grasping. It's a start to the concluding perceived political correctness and morons who think we have a right to privacy and whatnot.

 

About the religious text thing...I don't know what you're talking. At all. I didn't mention using religious texts in our legal system.

 

Ok thanks for clearing that up, it just sounded to me like you were espousing that kind of thing when you were suggesting that the wall between church and state ought not exist.

 

And yes, children should not be suspended for praying in school. That is a violation of their constitutional right.

[murra]

I understand......but you have diverted what was a good & interesting comment. None of those things were mentioned or implied until you brought them up.

 

Below is what was said.....which you seemed to garner some extra meaning from. SATM was simply stating that in the US you are lucky that there is a separation of C&S.

 

His point didn't go unnoticed, I just took it upon me to let it known that the fact he used, us having a separation, does not in fact exist.

 

I think my little side rant was more necessary than the direction of his arguments, which I agreed on.

[SDS]

But I'm unclear on something, are you suggesting that values from religious texts ought to be included in our legal system? That opens up a whole can of worms, seeing as the United States has no official religion.

 

 

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

[murra]

 

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

 

I wish someday I can take a large argument, pick apart one small comment, and still look intelligent while saying something obvious.

 

Please don't take offense to that. I'm complementing you, I think, I just don't know if there is a term for the above.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

 

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

 

Laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc tend to originate from good old fashioned common sense. Steal something? Go to jail. Murder someone? Go to jail for much longer. Common sense affects the tenets of both government and religion, which is why we tend to find so many commonalities, but when laws are made, we don't open up the Bible or any other religious document.

[Dibs]

Laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc tend to originate from good old fashioned common sense. Steal something? Go to jail. Murder someone? Go to jail for much longer. Common sense affects the tenets of both government and religion, which is why we tend to find so many commonalities, but when laws are made, we don't open up the Bible or any other religious document.

Actually I think the laws originate from religion......and religion structured their views(for the most part) on common sense.

 

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

There is a big difference between the laws following the will of the masses(usually in the past structured by religious views) and the laws being intrinsically linked with 'holy' views.....whether that be from holy texts or the clergy.

[ieatcrayonz]

Because, from where are we ever going to get the answer?

When you're at school do you derive value only from finding a final answer, or is there also value derived from your search/method?

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

The whole pledge of allegiance thing is just a dumb argument from both sides of the fence. Who gets hurt if we leave "god" in the pledge? Nobody. Who gets hurt if we take "god" out of the pledge? Nobody.

 

But I'm unclear on something, are you suggesting that values from religious texts ought to be included in our legal system? That opens up a whole can of worms, seeing as the United States has no official religion.

What MANY people fail to realize is that the part "Under God" NEVER appeared in the pledge until 1954. So removing God from the pledge is just returning it to its original forms.

 

So all those conservatives out there really should be the ones leading the charge to remove this from the pledge since it wasn't called out for in the original.

[Boomer860]

Laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc tend to originate from good old fashioned common sense. Steal something? Go to jail. Murder someone? Go to jail for much longer. Common sense affects the tenets of both government and religion, which is why we tend to find so many commonalities, but when laws are made, we don't open up the Bible or any other religious document.

Wrong as usual .I dont know what courses you are taking but there is no such thing as common sense thats why we have lawyers.. Try using common sense in court some time.Most laws if not all have thier basis in the ten commandments . Instead of playing video games read the constitution some time.

[murra]

Wrong as usual .I dont know what courses you are taking but there is no such thing as common sense thats why we have lawyers.. Try using common sense in court some time.Most laws if not all have thier basis in the ten commandments . Instead of playing video games read the constitution some time.

 

To be fair, I'm sure he comprehends the importance and role of the morality guideline from the ten commandments in our constitution.

 

The issue that bothers me is this other guy who is pretending like conservatives should be rooting for the pledge to remove God. I don't care if the term "under god" came to grips in 1704 or 1954, removing it is one step closer to pure politically correct bullsh*t socialism and I don't want to see that. Losing simple battles like that will allow people to continually take away rights that others might be offended at. Kids aren't offended by the word "God," their parents are. And that's ridiculous. If you don't believe in God you reserve the right not to get offended by someone who does.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

To be fair, I'm sure he comprehends the importance and role of the morality guideline from the ten commandments in our constitution.

 

The issue that bothers me is this other guy who is pretending like conservatives should be rooting for the pledge to remove God. I don't care if the term "under god" came to grips in 1704 or 1954, removing it is one step closer to pure politically correct bullsh*t socialism and I don't want to see that. Losing simple battles like that will allow people to continually take away rights that others might be offended at. Kids aren't offended by the word "God," their parents are. And that's ridiculous. If you don't believe in God you reserve the right not to get offended by someone who does.

 

Besides, nobody is FORCING kids to recite the pledge of allegiance in school. When the Iraq War first started, some kids in my class didn't want to recite the pledge out of protest, so they didn't have to. It's the same principle for "under god". Kids can recite the pledge in class and just not include "under god" if they don't like it. That's what I used to do. Or they can choose not to recite it. It's called free will. There's no reason that people with faith should have it taken away from them just because some parents think their kids are too big of pu*sies to deal with it. Though pragmatically, the religious kids wouldn't exactly suffer either, it would just be a minor inconvenience, and that's why I think it's a dumb issue to begin with.

[Boomer860]

To be fair, I'm sure he comprehends the importance and role of the morality guideline from the ten commandments in our constitution.

 

The issue that bothers me is this other guy who is pretending like conservatives should be rooting for the pledge to remove God. I don't care if the term "under god" came to grips in 1704 or 1954, removing it is one step closer to pure politically correct bullsh*t socialism and I don't want to see that. Losing simple battles like that will allow people to continually take away rights that others might be offended at. Kids aren't offended by the word "God," their parents are. And that's ridiculous. If you don't believe in God you reserve the right not to get offended by someone who does.

Well said . I am not sure I agree with you first sentence , I get the impression he thinks laws were drawn up from good old common sense.

You are so right , fighting simple battles is were it begins.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Wrong as usual .I dont know what courses you are taking but there is no such thing as common sense thats why we have lawyers.. Try using common sense in court some time.Most laws if not all have thier basis in the ten commandments . Instead of playing video games read the constitution some time.

 

Ok here's my point. Obviously, we have a law that states a person cannot kill another person. Also, the ten commandments state "thou shall not kill". That doesn't mean the law exists BECAUSE of the commandment. Had the Bible never been written, all societies would still hand down punishments for things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. That's why countries that aren't predominately Christian have largely the same types of violations deemed illegal.

 

And I'm not really sure where you're going with the Constitution. I'm going through the amendments in my head and I can't think of one that's even remotely religious. Illegal search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Free speech? Cruel and unusual punishment? Direct election of senators? While the ten commandments are an instruction for morality, the Constiution doesn't really project morality on the population, it gives rights to the masses.

[murra]

Besides, nobody is FORCING kids to recite the pledge of allegiance in school. When the Iraq War first started, some kids in my class didn't want to recite the pledge out of protest, so they didn't have to. It's the same principle for "under god". Kids can recite the pledge in class and just not include "under god" if they don't like it. That's what I used to do. Or they can choose not to recite it. It's called free will. There's no reason that people with faith should have it taken away from them just because some parents think their kids are too big of pu*sies to deal with it. Though pragmatically, the religious kids wouldn't exactly suffer either, it would just be a minor inconvenience, and that's why I think it's a dumb issue to begin with.

 

You're sounding every day more and more like you're a misinformed liberal, who has more conservative ideals than they even realize. Aside from your little pragmatic rant at the end, you were almost there. Still missing the point that the removal of "under god" has more serious repercussions than "not suffering".

[murra]

Ok here's my point. Obviously, we have a law that states a person cannot kill another person. Also, the ten commandments state "thou shall not kill". That doesn't mean the law exists BECAUSE of the commandment. Had the Bible never been written, all societies would still hand down punishments for things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. That's why countries that aren't predominately Christian have largely the same types of violations deemed illegal.

 

And I'm not really sure where you're going with the Constitution. I'm going through the amendments in my head and I can't think of one that's even remotely religious. Illegal search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Free speech? Cruel and unusual punishment? Direct election of senators? While the ten commandments are an instruction for morality, the Constiution doesn't really project morality on the population, it gives rights to the masses.

 

Haha. And I was defending you.

 

You do realize that the ten commandments, or the code of hammurabi, those ancient tablets, are exactly what laws were written by. Yes, laws in the western society derived from their absolute monarchy, who often used religion to create laws. Religion has those moralities we discussed earlier, and those are def. used in developing our constitution.

 

Why were you going through the amendments? Look at the constitution itself. I can think of plenty examples.

[Boomer860]

Ok here's my point. Obviously, we have a law that states a person cannot kill another person. Also, the ten commandments state "thou shall not kill". That doesn't mean the law exists BECAUSE of the commandment. Had the Bible never been written, all societies would still hand down punishments for things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. That's why countries that aren't predominately Christian have largely the same types of violations deemed illegal.

 

And I'm not really sure where you're going with the Constitution. I'm going through the amendments in my head and I can't think of one that's even remotely religious. Illegal search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Free speech? Cruel and unusual punishment? Direct election of senators? While the ten commandments are an instruction for morality, the Constiution doesn't really project morality on the population, it gives rights to the masses.

Well at least you dropped that common sense statement. How do you know that societies would still hand down punisment? Look I am not a religious hack , this country was founded on Judo Christion concepts one of which is the Bible ask a lawyer what the laws of this country were orginally based on . Here is one for you ,you always hear the separation of church and state. It means literally there shall be no state religions (ones established by the state) If religions was not so important to this country why is it always mentioned?