No one is talking about hostility or barring churches -- Chris Matthews Hardball Forum

Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 10:15:55pm
Author: J Warner
Subject: No one is talking about hostility or barring churches
In reply to: Spartacus 's message, "Sure" on Wednesday, October 20, 06:16:39pm

What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice

When you are talking about the Constitution, we are talking about and referring to the STATE, the GOVERNMENT.

The separation of church and state is designed to protect the CHURCH. While the Constitution doesn't specifically say "seperation of church and state" in practice that what goes on.

Even the Supreme Court has made that particular interpretation. The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning.

It is clear to me that a combining religion and government is non productive and dangerous.

If you are opposed to a separation of church and state as written in the Constitution and as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, does that mean you are in favor of a church led government?

Just curious if you would see any danger in that....

BTW, YOU and O'Donnell are asses.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Seems you had a problem understanding what she meant -- Spartacus, Thursday, October 21, 10:43:16am
- Seems like YOU have an understanding problem -- J Warner, Thursday, October 21, 12:01:51pm
  - So you admit she was right -- Spartacus, Thursday, October 21, 07:29:39pm
    - Only about the actual "words" not appearing. -- J Warner, Thursday, October 21, 09:12:55pm
      - It's obvious you don't understand it -- Spartacus, Thursday, October 21, 11:38:24pm
        It might be. -- J Warner, Friday, October 22, 08:31:48am
        Then explain this -- Spartacus, Friday, October 22, 10:05:00am
        I would have to see the examples in context -- J Warner, Friday, October 22, 03:47:53pm
        Context doesn't matter -- Spartacus, Friday, October 22, 04:02:04pm
        Context DOES matter -- J Warner, Saturday, October 23, 08:09:21am
        Nope -- Spartacus, Saturday, October 23, 04:16:14pm
        You cannot give me a "REAL" example -- J Warner, Sunday, October 24, 02:49:06am
        I've given you plenty -- Spartacus, Sunday, October 24, 02:58:18pm
        I'm a troll now, because you can't beat me? -- J Warner, Sunday, October 24, 04:06:10pm
        I've beaten you like a drum -- Spartacus, Sunday, October 24, 04:18:36pm
        LOL. -- J Warner, Sunday, October 24, 06:06:52pm
        I've beaten you politically, logically and rhetorically -- Spartacus, Monday, October 25, 12:30:17am
        I'll be here either way. -- J Warner, Wednesday, October 27, 05:54:41am

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.