Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire a philosophical question

How about M is for Muhammad, K is for Koran, and H if for Hadith?

Exactly, which is why public schools were a schidty idea in the first place. The Catholic schools were started because the public schools were "Protestant", for the most part.

The Constitution does NOT call for "separation of church and state"
It prohibits the establishment of a government religion - fallout from the Church of England, and persecution of Quakers, for example.
IOW .gov can't restrict any religion nor establish supremacy of one over another. Atheists have no religion - so are irrelevant, by definition.

If a tree falls in an empty Forrest, will anyone hear it?

Who gives two schitts?

Moving on............it's Friday.

Not according to the Supreme Court. An atheist or a group of atheist brought a suit. The Court decision was they represent a religion.

really?

after 10 years of coming here every day?



after answering 1-2 veterinary PMs every day the whole time?


that's all the truck it's worth?


just another [bleep] on the internet?

fine, I guess.


carry on...

An empty forest does not have trees. It's called a meadow or the plains.

Yep, you're a REAL DUMBAZZ, 'cause you think goin' to vet school and having folks call you "doc" makes you a goddam expert on everything, like the US Constitution you've never bothered to read.

Actually there isn't. It says that the federal government can't establish a religion OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. It says nothing about a state, county, or city establishing a religion. It says that an atheist can't use the constitution to prohibit anyone from practicing his religion. The constitution has been badly twisted to get where we are today.

Well I'm not seeking fame. And I want everyone to worship or not worship as they see fit. I don't wear an ATHEIST badge, or chip for that matter, on my shoulder.

I will say I believe there are 2 categories of atheism. The ones who don't give a crap and go about their lives leaving everyone to worship or not worship their god/gods and false idols as they see fit.

Then there's what I like to call the 'militant atheist'. This type of person DOES have a chip on their shoulder. And they want to involve themselves in everyone else's business. And I despise these people. This group includes those wackos from Wisconsin, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with nothing better to do than stick their cheesy-booger filled fuggin noses where they are not wanted and don't belong.

But I did just troll Ringman in another thread so maybe I'm a little 'militant' tonight but it was in the name of science and good fun.

And yes, "under God" should stay in the pledge and on our money.

I'd like to see you militants get rowdy with them islamist fellas

You know, get em all lined out and such.

I always thought this separation of church and state business was just bad language run amok,based on a letter that is not even codified, and carried no weight of law, being nothing more than a convenient term that some justice latched onto in a moment of intellectual depravity.

Especially since the entire underpinning and foundation of the Constitution is predicated on (a) the recognition of a deity,and (b) Judeo/Christian values,which are embodied into the fundamentals of our entire legal system.

I do agree that it says what it says...that ...."Congress shall make no laws affecting the establishment of a religion",or the free exercise thereof (my memory of the language . I did not look it up).

I also agree that these principles have been enforced upon the states via the 14th Amendment.

I don't recall that Congress ever made any such law,and banning school prayer on that predicate seems pretty thin logic to me. Local schools are not "Congress"; hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in public places is not pursuant to a law passed by Congress; and nativity scenes at Christmas are not on the public square by an act of Congress.

But how we go from that language, strictly interpreted, to banning the display of the 10 Commandments in public places,is a stretch.

How can you,on the one hand,create an entire legal system based on the tenets of Christianity,and then simultaneously ban any reference to it? It makes no sense.

I don't think the Founding Fathers intended a "wall" at all; I do think they intended that the government should not establish a state religion;nor should it prohibit one from practicing the religion of his/her choice. Seems pretty simple to me.


The Establishment Clause has been perverted.

I hope you can understand my disappointment to find you're not the intelligent well reasoned man I had you pegged for.

Hope you can sleep tonight


Well played btw, well played indeed

Darrell, are you ever not a total jackass? It's not like an EMT with a lapsed certification has any more training on the Constitution than a vet does.

Can't remember the fool's real name but is Bluemonday our buddy TAK?

Some of his posts on other threads have a distinct odor to them...

Look, I'm no constitutional expert, but this argument is another example of folks forgetting all the history that led up to what we call "Separation of Church and State."

If any of y'all have any kin hailing from England, and they showed up here in the 17th Century and you have any idea of why they showed up here, you probably have the story staring at you from the pages of your family bible.

Up until Henry VIII, the church in Britain was like a whole separate state within a state. Henry VIII removed the Roman Catholic Church from the political mix and made himself the head of his own church. For the next 200 years, Britain was in turmoil over this, as the Protestants and Catholics fought over who was going to be the head of the church and whether or not any other faith besides the official state church was going to be allowed.

For a good many of us, this was the impetus for our families to come to America. One side would take power and go about persecuting the opposition. Titles were seized, lands confiscated and the only alternative was to flee to America. You might also be a member of outlaw sect. Depending on how the winds blew, you were either left alone or hunted down and killed, and you never knew from year to year whether your past associations with a given religious practice might be criminalized.

KYHillChick's kin were like that. At one point, they were top of the heap, and overnight were thrown out of power and had to flee large holdings and run to America. In fact, she had kin on both sides and in the space of a decade or so, both sides had to flee to the Colonies. One side was a neighbor to the Washingtons of Virginia and ended up being George's mother. The other side settled in North Carolina and then had to flee over the mountains before finally settling in Kentucky. The point is, it did not matter which side you were on-- both sides got it in fairly equal measure.

My point is that THAT is the kind of political shenanigans we as a people meant to eradicate from our world. We found that having the state and its leader acting concurrently as the head of the religion was against the common good, since you never knew who would be in power and therefore never knew how to pray.

The other facet of this separation doctrine was a bit less dangerous but rather insidious. In the Colonies, clergy had to be educated and ordained in England, and the Church and therefore the king could control who was sent to each pulpit and dictate what was preached. As the cultures diverged, the church became more and more alien to the parishioners. It became a vehicle as well as a symbol of oppression.

This whole idea that the state and religion being separate was a battle that was fought and won, for the most part, prior to the Constitution being written. We, living in 21st Century America have a wholly different fight on our hands, namely the government trying to actively limit religious expression under the rubric of "Separation of Church and State."

My suggestion for its resolution is simple and straight forward. Wherever those that seek to limit religious expression wish to work their mischief, I say flood it. If your children are being told they cannot pray in school, then I say tell them to pray openly. If they are told that Jesus cannot be mentioned in school, say his name every day in every way. If you are told that GOD cannot be somewhere, then make it your duty to put him there. This is the simple act of civil disobedience. They cannot expel all the students. They cannot fire everyone. They cannot put all the believers in jail. They cannot put them all in camps without turning the country itself into a jail. If school is barred to the Faithful, then there will be no school. If they seek to disenfranchise, then vote them out while you still have a chance.

For here is what I predict: once the opposition has been squelched. Once YOUR god has been silenced, these bastards will set up their own god and make YOU pray to him. It has never been otherwise in the history of mankind.

Same/same

The problem with this is that UtahLefty, BobinNH, and shaman are each correct.

There was always to be a separation of church and state. Yet, the Establishment Claude has been perverted. And, for the purpose of eliminating all gods but that of the State.

The most important statement in this whole thread. miles

If I were an Atheist, and I seriously believed what I didn't believe in, I'd be doing something to make sure the deluded religious morons kept the right to pray as often as loudly as they wanted. I'd even think about wearing a WWJD T-Shirt myself. Here's why: after they're done shuttering the churches, they'll be forcing you on your knees, praying to something you don't want just like the rest of us. Take it from the guy who walks around with a funny headdress and a rattle-- you really don't want to get on the wrong end of this deal.

Traveling to deer camp, I drive several back roads to get to where I'm going. I've written about this before, about the epiphany I had one Sunday, driving back to town at sundown and passing all those little white churches, all of different demoninations with the parking lots filled and the lights blazing and choirs signing, and all inside thinking it was they alone that held the pass to salvation. And here was I , in my truck, listening to obscure Jethro Tull.



Everything seemed right in the world that night, and perhaps that is truth, because we all think we have the answer, and in God's eyes we probably all look like that, little white churches like so many little white ant hills on so many little garden paths. That's a good thing, I think. It was the way He meant it to be-- a bunch of little white ant hills with a bunch of little black ants inside all safely assuming that they have the right answer.