Originally posted by PsychoPawnWe aren't discussing the ACLU though are we? So why do you even bring them up?
[b]Are you aware of the activities of the ACLU, and how they have used this idea of 'separation of church and state' to go after Christian groups, and impose limitations on churches?
Show me one case where the ACLU has imposed a limitation on a church. Can you give me some examples where the ACLU has targeted christian groups?
Are you aware of ...[text shortened]... d christians?
We aren't discussing the ACLU though are we? So why do you even bring them up?[/b]
We were discussing 'separation of church and state', were we not? Did Swiss Gambit not say Christians should be in support of it? I explained why most Christians do not support it, because it's a misrepresentation of the original doctrine and has been used by groups like the ACLU to target christian churches. IYO why should Christians be in support of something that has been used against them? Does this seem reasonable to you? And now you're asking me why I brought up the ACLU? Oh, I don't know... because I felt like it?
You and SG are asking for examples. I'll need time to compile a few examples and provide links, seeing as how I'm apparently the only one here who is able to do that... so how many examples would it take to convince you? This has been going on for several years, so there will be plenty of examples to choose from.
Edit: Better yet, you can check this out for yourself. A good place to start is to google ACLJ... The American Center for Law and Justice. I know that many of you here rely on Wikipedia for your information, and was pleasantly surprised to see Wiki do a fair job of explaining the purpose of this organization, and how they have provided a counterbalance to groups and individuals who have been working to restrict religious freedoms. There's even one example of where the ACLJ and the ACLU were on the same side of a particular issue... some attacks are so brazen that even the ACLU will have no choice but to oppose it.
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI did a brief search but I didn't see any reason to justify your claim against the ACLU.
[b]We aren't discussing the ACLU though are we? So why do you even bring them up?
We were discussing 'separation of church and state', were we not? Did Swiss Gambit not say Christians should be in support of it? I explained why most Christians do not support it, because it's a misrepresentation of the original doctrine and has been used by groups l ...[text shortened]... lar issue... some attacks are so brazen that even the ACLU will have no choice but to oppose it.[/b]
I know there are a couple things that I think the ACLJ is fighting for that I don't agree with, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU.
Whether the ACLU or the ACLJ are good or bad organizations or whether they fight on sides you or I agree or disagree with has nothing to do with the actual concept of the separation of church and state and whether it in itself is a good idea.
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell obviously it's not raining in California. Abortion has been around for 40+ years. Where allowing nontraditional marriage. And we're not giving farmers water for some stupid fish.
Do you have some kind of example of where God was taken out, or was that just a talking point?
Here is the one I will show you: http://www.gospelapplied.com/2014/01/18/no-rain-in-ca-judgment-from-god-2/
They added this one: this is nasty view beware WARNING!!!
http://www.gospelapplied.com/2014/01/28/bloodguilt-abortions-city/
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOkay, one more time... the idea of preventing government from becoming involved in religion was to prevent what had happened in England, establishing The Church of England to be the one government sanctioned religion/denomination. Agree or disagree?
I did a brief search but I didn't see any reason to justify your claim against the ACLU.
I know there are a couple things that I think the ACLJ is fighting for that I don't agree with, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU.
Whether the ACLU or the ACLJ are good or bad organizations or whether they fight on sides you or I agree or disag ...[text shortened]... he actual concept of the separation of church and state and whether it in itself is a good idea.
It was never the intention of the founding fathers to keep religious influence out of government, it was to keep government from gaining control over religion. Religion wasn't the only thing being protected. The underlying idea was to keep government from meddling in other areas as well... private commerce, prohibiting military from taking over private households, prohibiting a ban on weapons for private citizens, etc. etc. The founding documents have been referred to as a charter of negative liberties to be imposed on government (not on the citizens) to prevent our government from someday de-evolving into a tyranny. History has shown that tyrannical governments have always followed the same pattern when attempting to establish control over the populace... such as muzzling religious leaders and intellectuals, and disarming the citizenery.
How does that saying go? If we don't learn from history it will repeat itself? Close enough. Or are you one of those people who say it can never happen (or will never happen) here?
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limethe idea of preventing government from becoming involved in religion was to prevent what had happened in England, establishing The Church of England to be the one government sanctioned religion/denomination. Agree or disagree?
Okay, one more time... the idea of preventing government from becoming involved in religion was to prevent what had happened in England, establishing The Church of England to be the one government sanctioned religion/denomination. Agree or disagree?
It was never the intention of the founding fathers to keep religious influence out of government, it was ...[text shortened]... enough. Or are you one of those people who say it can never happen (or will never happen) here?
In part, yes. Not in its entirety though
It was never the intention of the founding fathers to keep religious influence out of government
Depending on what you define as being "religious influence", I don't have a problem with it. I don't see the separation of church and state meaning that you prevent religious people from taking part in government.
The founding documents have been referred to as a charter of negative liberties to be imposed on government (not on the citizens) to prevent our government from someday de-evolving into a tyranny
I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I have said or claimed. The separation of church and state does not go against this idea as far as I am concerned.
Or are you one of those people who say it can never happen (or will never happen) here?
What? That religion is trampled by a tyrannical government? Sure it can happen here, but if you have ONE religion having sufficient influence on a government then that is what will happen - it will end up being a theocracy.
I also don't agree with you that religion is being trampled by any significant strech in this country. In many cases christianity is losing a lot of the privilege that it had before - but that isn't tyranny, it's simply one faith not being favored anymore.
Yes, there are individual cases that you can point to where christians (and people of other faiths too) have had their rights interfered with and I agree that is wrong - in some of these cases the ACLU has represented them too.
When I actually see any issue where I think someone's religious rights are being trampled I am against it - but I also don't think people have the right to do anything just because their religion says it's ok.
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI did a brief search but I didn't see any reason to justify your claim against the ACLU.
I did a brief search but I didn't see any reason to justify your claim against the ACLU.
I know there are a couple things that I think the ACLJ is fighting for that I don't agree with, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU.
Whether the ACLU or the ACLJ are good or bad organizations or whether they fight on sides you or I agree or disag ...[text shortened]... he actual concept of the separation of church and state and whether it in itself is a good idea.
I assumed as much, that's why I said "...you can check this out for yourself. A good place to start [your search] is to google ACLJ."
A good place to start...
Originally posted by lemon limeThat's exactly what I did. Are you done being condescending or is this conversation over?
[b] I did a brief search but I didn't see any reason to justify your claim against the ACLU.
I assumed as much, that's why I said "...you can check this out for yourself. A good place to start [your search] is to google ACLJ."
[hidden]A good place to start...[/hidden][/b]
EDIT: How do you think I did a brief search?
Also, did you look into all the ways the ACLU has defended christians and their rights? Did you even do a brief search?
maybe you could google it too...
29 Jan 14
Originally posted by PsychoPawn10 years ago you could have talked me into doing your homework for you. That was then, this is now... 'nough said.
That's exactly what I did. Are you done being condescending or is this conversation over?
EDIT: How do you think I did a brief search?
Also, did you look into all the ways the ACLU has defended christians and their rights? Did you even do a brief search?
[hidden]maybe you could google it too...[/hidden]
Originally posted by lemon limeWell, I am not asking you to do my homework. You're not my teacher.
10 years ago you could have talked me into doing your homework for you. That was then, this is now... 'nough said.
I guess you're not willing to substantiate your case and that's fine. Just don't expect me to do your job of providing actual facts to back up your argument.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by RBHILLOh, I see. When you say "God", you really mean "issues of concern to God's followers". Well, isn't that convenient. No one can ever oppose you politically; they must always deal with the Almighty.
Well obviously it's not raining in California. Abortion has been around for 40+ years. Where allowing nontraditional marriage. And we're not giving farmers water for some stupid fish.
Here is the one I will show you: http://www.gospelapplied.com/2014/01/18/no-rain-in-ca-judgment-from-god-2/
They added this one: this is nasty view beware WARNING!!!
http://www.gospelapplied.com/2014/01/28/bloodguilt-abortions-city/
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWait ... you're dead certain that there is a war on Christianity ... so certain that you cannot even give a single example off the top of your head?!
10 years ago you could have talked me into doing your homework for you. That was then, this is now... 'nough said.
Is that supposed to be hard?
Even RBHILL can type one word that he thinks represents 'taking God out' : "Abortion".
I guess none of us should be too concerned with your opinion on this matter then.
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitDo your own homework or die in your sins.
Wait ... you're dead certain that there is a war on Christianity ... so certain that you cannot even give a single example off the top of your head?!
Is that supposed to be hard?
Even RBHILL can type one word that he thinks represents 'taking God out' : "Abortion".
I guess none of us should be too concerned with your opinion on this matter then.
31 Jan 14
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe state passes laws. Laws reflect morality. Morality reflects our spiritual state. While I agree that speaking for God is dangerous in that men will inevitably speak things that God has not, the opposite is also dangerous. Now we have men completely ignore what God has said while saying that God does not exist. Saying that God is not apart of the equation in a way makes them the final authority, or a god of sorts. Then we blindly adopt what they preach to us from the government pulpit just because they have power or have a majority to agree with them, so long as they don't utter the word "God".
...separation of Church and State.
The American Colonists were strongly motivated to come here by a desire to worship God in their own way. In England, they were forced by the King to follow the dictates of the Church of England.
That is exactly why the government should remain as neutral as possible when it comes to matters of religion. When gover ...[text shortened]... ould also not want a teacher of another religion teaching my children to pray to Mecca on a rug.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. At one point in history, kings once had us believing that they were god. Then when that got old they had us believing that they spoke for God. Then when that got old they had us believing that there is no God, thus making themselves god.
For the most part, we are all wired to know good from evil. The Golden rule reigns supreme. That is the beauty of it no matter how man tries to alter this inner God given voice to suit his own purposes. However, some things are harder to judge than others. Take for example, the gay marriage issue. How does the Golden Rule apply here? From a secular perspective, it probably doesn't. However, the powers that be are always preaching to us about being "healthy". They outlaw Happy Meals, smoking, biggie sodas etc. However, they glibly ignore that gay males account for the majority of AIDS cases even though they are a small minority. The problem here is, the precedent has been set. At some point someone will look at the AIDS numbers for gay males and try to do to them what they have done to others, which is passing laws to promote "good health". You can never outrun the Inquisition, even if the self righteous "do gooders" do so devoid of the name of God.
What can you say? People just suck.