Thread: Separation of Church and...

Originally Posted by debay

Sooooo, If Im Gov of NC and I give my opinion that mint ice cream is nasty and that I prefer orange sherbet, thats technically wrong because now the whole state is somehow "forced" to stand behind my opinion? What if I say as Gov that on the following Sunday I want everyone who agrees with me to have Orange Sherbet ice cream after their sunday meal? oh, heaven forbid I mention Im having mine after a Sunday lunch at CHURCH. Heaven forbid. The only thing that makes this more complicated than ice cream is that religion is such a hot topic. Its actually quite simple if you let it be. This conversation is never going to move forward. You have your opinion, I have mine. I personally believe that christian values in a political figure are nice to have. They are human and subject to corruption like anyone else- they are politicians afterall- but I prefer it. A look at the founding fathers shows that many of them had strong protestant backgrounds and beliefs that they did not hide in their writings or public speakings. Could our government not use a stricter set of morals and guidelines right now? I think we need a whole lot more Jesus than we do insane taxes, corporate backscratching and back room deals. Im cutting off any responses because like I said, its a dead end debate. May God bless you and may your eyes see The Truth before its too late.

That may the single worst analogy I've ever read.


You knocked the living hell out of that strawman though.

Congratulations.

Originally Posted by gugi

Not really, they already had the power and wielded it against anybody who wasn't willing to conform to that standard. We're talking the 'early protestants', right?
Political power and religious power were the same thing.

They had their bases of regional power. None had colony wide power. Not early protestants period, but say pre revolutionary war to just after the war protestant groups.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hhkHG...%3DhhkHG-oKCEU

Originally Posted by maddafinga

YouTube

Umm, not showing up here.

Damn phone internet.... Try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhkH...e_gdata_player

Sure they are.

Originally Posted by maddafinga

Sure they are.

Please explain why they are.

A funny truth about ANY higher power...

With faith comes proof, with proof comes the loss of faith...

You have to mull that over a bit


You guys are arguing semantics from 200 years ago, to invoke "God" in a document gave it the power of law back then... It really has no more or no less meaning then the words now of something like "By the power vested in me by the Great State of Idaho"

Well, I think knowing what people actually meant when they wrote something back in the days is a really good place to start. The thing that justice Scalia has championed as originalism.

I don't have to agree with it, (I don't simply buy argumentum ad verecundiam), but that's the one meaning which is immutable.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

A funny truth about ANY higher power...

With faith comes proof, with proof comes the loss of faith...

You have to mull that over a bit

I think Glen is spot-on in his statement - it really IS that simple.