• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What happened to separation of church and state?

punjabiplaya

punjabiplaya

Diamond Member
I hope this is just a rogue sysadmin and not a policy

PtHlL.png
 
What separation of church and state? Show me in the Constitution where you find it. Really. I'm interested. The first Amendment only prohibits a state religion. You might want to read it.
 
I tried to do a paper on the Aryan Brotherhood when I was like 16 or 17. Couldn't look up anything on school computers, all blocked, but I could go to any Black Panther site I wanted to. I wrote a letter to the district complaining about it.
 
bfdd said:
I tried to do a paper on the Aryan Brotherhood when I was like 16 or 17. Couldn't look up anything on school computers, all blocked, but I could go to any Black Panther site I wanted to. I wrote a letter to the district complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
It makes my skin crawl when a presidential candidate uses religion to pander for votes. It just ain't right. No way, no how, not even on a Sunny summer Sunday where the deer and the antelope play.

It raises my hackles when a presidential candidate gets continuously whomped over the head with a bible too. Especially when that bible is being used as a weapon of insidious destruction by those that claim to adhere to its every tenet, to the letter.

Yet you hear and see it every time election season comes around.

The problem is not about creating a state religion. It's about electing a president who runs his/her administration with religon as the underpinning for his/her decision making process, the result of which creates a quasi-state religion that skirts the first amendment quite nicely.
 
I think neither website should have been blocked.

I long for the day where people realize that 2000 year old superstitions aren't important in today's world. You don't need religion to teach right and wrong - that's what family is for. If you're a parent and can't figure out a way to teach your kids to not steal, lie, and murder without quoting the bible then you probably should take a class or not have kids at all.
 
That site got stuck on a blacklist. Send a request to have it removed and see what happens. Doubt it is some conspiracy. A lot of admins simply default the filter and let it do its thing.

And this isnt a seperation of church and state issue at all.

/facepalm
 
Christianity is under attack! So, they have to defend themselves!!!!shift+1!!!! Like when Godless humans who don't value life, by having an abortion, have their abortion doctor shot and killed to prevent more abortions! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO VALUE AND RESPECT LIFE!!!

And, it's usually the inbred vomit that is the most violent. Who burned the Koran? Who enjoys screaming about killing all the Muslims? Who enjoys shooting abortion doctors,... in a fucking church no less? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller

I believe in God. However, some of the lunatics in the US have taken their belief too far.
 
a777pilot said:
What separation of church and state? Show me in the Constitution where you find it. Really. I'm interested. The first Amendment only prohibits a state religion. You might want to read it.
Click to expand...

And the common legal interpretation of the first Amendment is that government action that officially supports one religion over another IS effectively like establishing a state religion.
 
Genx87 said:
That site got stuck on a blacklist. Send a request to have it removed and see what happens. Doubt it is some conspiracy. A lot of admins simply default the filter and let it do its thing.

And this isnt a seperation of church and state issue at all.

/facepalm
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Part of the problem with trusting official policy (what websites you're allowed to access) to default settings set up by some random company that has no particular standard they have to follow.
 
punjabiplaya said:
I hope this is just a rogue sysadmin and not a policy
Click to expand...

I'll take option C, an INCOMPLETE policy. Really it's that simple, they can't initially cover everything and yes, they're probably biased and selective on what does get covered first. Feel free to petition them on additions to their policy.

Imagine for a moment, if they were banned from restricting in the first place. Then there wouldn't be a problem of having to restrict everything equally.
 
Rainsford said:
And the common legal interpretation of the first Amendment is that government action that officially supports one religion over another IS effectively like establishing a state religion.
Click to expand...

Supporting and allowing are not the same thing. Thus the words....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
 
a777pilot said:
Supporting and allowing are not the same thing. Thus the words....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. I wasn't talking about the free exercise clause, I was talking about the establishment clause. Which literally says that the government can't establish a state religion, and which is commonly interpreted to mean the government can't do anything that supports (or attacks) one religion in particular. "Separation of church and state" isn't the best way of saying that, but in the case in this thread, a school ONLY allowing Christian websites (which I suspect they aren't doing on purpose) would clearly violate the establishment clause.
 
a777pilot said:
Neither....

That's what it says.
Click to expand...

And who's job is it to interpret the constitution? And what do THEY feel it means?

I doubt blocking an atheist site while not blocking a christian site would satisfy the three part test established by Lemon vs Kurtzman.
 
thraashman said:
Actually, most atheists don't like when other atheists push their agenda either. Most atheists don't like evangelism from any religion, including our own.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

You got that right we don't have an Agenda to "Save the World" .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top