Marriage

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It does say that the state should not have a national church (underlined) like England did.

they don't want to know the truth, they want the popular myth of seperation of church/state that the hippies of the 60's (or before that?) started and that liberal judges seem to read into the constitution

the point in 1787 was that they didn't want a state sponsored church like the Anglican Church

Well everyone is ignorant, see sig. However, I can't help people who WANT to stay that way... 😛

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It does say that the state should not have a national church (underlined) like England did.

they don't want to know the truth, they want the popular myth of seperation of church/state that the hippies of the 60's (or before that?) started and that liberal judges seem to read into the constitution

the point in 1787 was that they didn't want a state sponsored church like the Anglican Church

The Supreme Court has consistently (and well before the 1960s) upheld the notion that Jefferson intended for the wall of separation to work in both directions (Establishment Clause & Free Exercise Clause). The legal precedent has almost always held that religious affairs have no place in our country's government (and similarly, that governmental affairs have no place in our country's churches).

It's a really simple idea that has helped keep this nation free.

I don't see how anyone could take up a position against it. Theocracies don't have a real rosy place in history, that's for sure. I consider myself a Christian and I have no problem keeping my religious affairs out of political ones. There is just nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) by them being intertwined. A secular society doesn't discourge me from practicing my faith, and furthermore I can sleep at night because I know that people of other religions (including atheism) are just as able to practice theirs. I certainly wouldn't want a Muslim senator legislating her religious beliefs, even if a majority of citizens were to approve. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that no religion should be legislating its beliefs, even if a majority of citizens approve. The Constitution of this country is in place to protect the minority from the majority!

Separation of Church and State <-- Some good reading from as close to an un-biased site as you'll find. Well worth a bookmark (and a donation!)

l2c

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: luv2chill

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It does say that the state should not have a national church (underlined) like England did.

they don't want to know the truth, they want the popular myth of seperation of church/state that the hippies of the 60's (or before that?) started and that liberal judges seem to read into the constitution

the point in 1787 was that they didn't want a state sponsored church like the Anglican Church

The Supreme Court has consistently (and well before the 1960s) upheld the notion that Jefferson intended for the wall of separation to work in both directions (Establishment Clause &amp; Free Exercise Clause). The legal precedent has almost always held that religious affairs have no place in our country's government (and similarly, that governmental affairs have no place in our country's churches).

It's a really simple idea that has helped keep this nation free.

I don't see how anyone could take up a position against it. Theocracies don't have a real rosy place in history, that's for sure. I consider myself a Christian and I have no problem keeping my religious affairs out of political ones. There is just nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) by them being intertwined. A secular society doesn't discourge me from practicing my faith, and furthermore I can sleep at night because I know that people of other religions (including atheism) are just as able to practice theirs. I certainly wouldn't want a Muslim senator legislating her religious beliefs, even if a majority of citizens were to approve. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that no religion should be legislating its beliefs, even if a majority of citizens approve. The Constitution of this country is in place to protect the minority from the majority!

Separation of Church and State <-- Some good reading from as close to an un-biased site as you'll find. Well worth a bookmark (and a donation!)

l2c

:thumbsup:

 

[Rumpltzer]

Do I get a tax break if I marry a foreigner (one who has no SSN)?

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Yeah, because when I think of a church... I think of romance with boys.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Yeah, because when I think of a church... I think of romance with boys.

Nice trolling. :thumbsup: