Find me where it says "separation of church and state"

when you sleep tonight, be happy (astonished) you will awake tomorrow. (ie...taking for granted just being conscious is the rube)

i am honest in judgment

i could care less if someone has what they consider "right or good" intentions, if forethought is not sustained in context, then the liar need be educated and responsible.

No one has a right to lie on matters of life and death!!!!!!!!!

(it is why this part of the forum is where i spend most of my time)

math removes opinion in many aspects.

the opinions are from the benchmarks and that is where i reworked the scope of comprehending existence. by readdressing the key(s). (mass, (the elements), energy (the light/em), and time (the transcendent))

ie.....math is universal (the universal langage worldwide), the benchmark(s) currently used (plancks constant) are incorrect (hence my little pun; "walking the planck ends in drowning")

neither have i

ie..... what is real (the house of zion (of knowledge) is ready to be opened (shamballah)

perfectly.... 'what life itself is"

like comprehending what 'good and bad' are conforming to existence itself (god/mother nature)


Only one idiot, EVER even written about has that 'name'

upon the head................


so i aint nice to liars.................. that is what the revealing enables all to understand!!!!!!!!!!!

and equally, be just as capable!!!!!!!!!


guess who

 

What is important in your life?

http://youtu.be/tgbNymZ7vqY

 

doing good: supporting life to continue

enabling mankind with 'the name'

 

A jokeful abstracta - on the other side I was astonished to find now something out about a "star man religion". Remembers me somehow to a SF-story I read once what ended with a star bangled hammer. I was a little child when I read it, so I don't remember any longer what the story was about and who wrote it. Only the joke survived in my memory.

http://youtu.be/P2yWbWigKNw

 

It's a good link, being from the library of congress.

One can not have a very good perspective on the "establishment clause" without looking at occurences in the state of Virginia that motivated Jefferson to write a freedom of religion law. Jefferson's approach was philosophical, but it was in response to on-the-ground problems that Jefferson had to deal with. This is true of most law. Most law is reactive. Why do hair dryers have those stupid warnings not to use them in the shower? Because some idiot used it in the shower. Had that not happened, there would be no such warning label.

 

He may not have written the actual words, but he was the coauthor of the first religious freedom law. It was obviously on his mind and something he was interested in advancing. The "separation" phrase comes from Jefferson explaining the meaning of the 1st the first amendment. The provenance could not be more legitimate.

 

Although the principle of separation of church and state predate even Jefferson because it is built into the Westminster system - and the founding fathers did not ignore Westminster, although many conservatives think they did

 

First of all, it didn't need explaining ten years after its ratification. Second, that phrase has ended up doing more to confuse the issue than anything else since anti-relgionists have seized upon it, sensing its potential for diverting attention from the fact that the establishment clause can't be constitutionally applied against the states.

Please, nobody claims Jefferson didn't write the letter, but the implication that he had some extraordinary insight into the meaning of the establisment or free exercise clauses is utterly unfounded.

 

Look, it's quite simple. I've said it earlier I'll say it again for your benefit.

Religion has absolutely no place in government. It is as much for the protection of the religions in existence as it is for the government that holds to those absolute laws.

 

One hardly expects atheists to think otherwise, but that has no bearing on the topic. If you wish by legal means to purge every vestige of religion from every government entity in the US, you need to get a constitutional amendment ratified.

 

Thankfully, I won't have to have the bill of rights modified in any way.

Religious dogma belongs in religion, not in government.

Your precious religion might not exist if it was any other way.

 

Maybe not, but you'll sure as Hell have to have the Constitution modified. That's the point.

 

Give me the information that backs up your claim or begone, I have no more patience for those who are unwilling to support their position with actual facts.

 

You post like someone who has never read the Constitution. If you did, it's hard to imagine how you missed the religious test clause, which prohibits religious discrimination with respect to federal office holders, without which ability you cannot achieve your stated goal.

 

Incorrect. This is meant as another form of the first amendment, which states that you cannot discriminate on a person based on their beliefs. This does not mean they can enforce their own religious beliefs on the office they hold, as that would, once again, be in VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Try again.

 

Not really. I had to think a lot about "humanity" because Heinrich Himmler was [one of] the worst mass murderers ever lived. This man was a Bavarian like I, he was born as a Catholic like I and he was educated to be a humanist. His father was a director of a humanistic school for the children of elites. I love also the greek roots (christian religion, renaissance, enligtenment and so on and so on) of Europe and the western world and science and so on.

So what makes the difference between me and Heinrich Himmler - besides that Hitler, Himmler and some unkown persons murdered the most people of the jewish part of my family who were humanists too?

...

Whatever - the story grows to long - there are really lots of thoughts in this context "What are we able to know? What can we hope? What shall we do? What is the human being?"

Only one little point: In the moment Europe decided on pragmatic reasons not to build a constitution with a preword like: "In the feeling to be responsible to god the people of Europe are giving themselve this constuition: ..." I have the feeling since this days lots of things are going wrong.

After Napoleon unto Hitler such sentences were called "superstion", "nonsense" and so on. The first german constitution again what took god serios is our constition builded directly after World War 2, where everyone had the feelingh only god is able to help any longer. And the history of Germany shows: God helped - also with the help of our christian friends, specially also the USA. I have the feeling even this constitiosn became more worse since the more atheist were changing in this constitution year by year. But no one is allowed to change the spirit of our constition - I would call this spirit of our constitution the christian heart. It's written between the lines.

The whole situation is maybe comparable with human beings. There is not the good cool emptionless thinker who is always right and a helpless bad emotional barbar who has to be eliminated or somethign like this. Everyone who thinks needs his heart to think. We need both - love and reason. We need respect to god and respect to human beings. We all need the spirit of the free mind, a heartful brave crew, an anchor in god and ways with orientation.

http://youtu.be/QdwvW_rG6Mg

 

Not in the least.

This is vacuous drivel.

I'm sure that's a wonderful counter to some argument I never made.

To get you to understand plain English? Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

 

Ad hominim eh, ok fair point. I understand you may not have an answer besides attacking me personally, but please refrain from doing so as it makes everyone who shares your viewpoint look very wrong and very petty.


Be more like the poster above and state your actual reasons for supporting the argument you purport to argue for. He's got the right of it.

 

And I understand how the intellectual bankruptcy of your position impels you to resort to brazen lies.

I've done so in no uncertain terms. Your inability or unwillingness to comrpehend is not my problem.

 

And the wheel spins on...

 

I understand your position on this, but the problem is that in order for this to be the basis of introducing religion into government, would you not then have to disprove all other religions in existence?

 

How do you take care that a govenrment is not serving only the god "money"? How do you take care that atheism doesn't destroy all religious symbols in schools? How do you take care that only a special form of thoughts and/or ideology is privileging some few people? How do you take care that decisions of the american government do not help Muslims to destroy the 2000 years old christian religion in Iraq? What happend with the religions of the red indians? Why is somehting a religion what has absolutely nothing to do with religion like the criminal organization scientology for example? ... And so so and so on. ...

http://youtu.be/PUGYlGNhcRc