Maher on Christmas & Republicans Recanting the Separation of Church and State.

[DKW 86 7,424]

Maher has become more profound in his later life. We need the separation of church and state more than ever now. The Muslim Extremists? The Muslim Extremists live and breathe this stuff. They are counting on America, and the West in general, falling for the RELIGION AND STATE garbage. One of the Pillars of Freedom for all is Freedom FROM RELIGION.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by DKW 86

[autigeremt 6,628]

The Lords greatest gift to mankind is Free Will. Man’s greatest failure has been to take that gift and use it to attain power over others.

Religion has been the impetus of more death and destruction than anything outside of sickness and disease. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by autigeremt

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/2/2023 at 9:59 AM, DKW 86 said:

We need the separation of church and state more than ever now.

What if I told you that the Framers of the Constitution did not subscribe to a separationist view?

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What if I told you that the Framers of the Constitution did not subscribe to a separationist view?

Whether the framers intended it or not, strict separation is the best, most common sense policy for the government to follow. 

 

If not you end up with situations like the current one in Iowa where they allowed a Christian nativity monument to be placed publicly in the Statehouse, triggering the Satanic Temple to apply for their own monument to be placed...that was approved...and now a group of Iowa Republicans are having meltdowns and ranting about it in the chamber. 

 

Would have been better to just not allow any religious symbolism in the statehouse to begin with and spare so many people hurt feelings and apparent distress at seeing religious symbols that they don't like or feel offended by. 

 

 

 

[DKW 86 7,424]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What if I told you that the Framers of the Constitution did not subscribe to a separationist view?

Would not believe you.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:00 PM, DKW 86 said:

Would not believe you.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-1693P.ZD

Does anything in the first five pages of the above link change your mind?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:15 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

Whether the framers intended it or not, strict separation is the best, most common sense policy for the government to follow. 

 

If not you end up with situations like the current one in Iowa where they allowed a Christian nativity monument to be placed publicly in the Statehouse, triggering the Satanic Temple to apply for their own monument to be placed...that was approved...and now a group of Iowa Republicans are having meltdowns and ranting about it in the chamber. 

 

Would have been better to just not allow any religious symbolism in the statehouse to begin with and spare so many people hurt feelings and apparent distress at seeing religious symbols that they don't like or feel offended by. 

 

 

 

Uh, okay?

[AUDub 11,148]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-1693P.ZD

Does anything in the first five pages of the above link change your mind?

No. In fact I find that particular argument from authority pretty lazy from you lol. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-1693P.ZD

Does anything in the first five pages of the above link change your mind?

 

Nope. Scalia makes some points but otherwise doesnt change good thinking. If we are to have Freedom of Religion, then we must have Freedom FROM Religion Dominance.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Nope. Scalia makes some points but otherwise doesnt change good thinking. If we are to have Freedom of Religion, then we must have Freedom FROM Religion Dominance.

The issue there is where there is a void of constructive thought allows for destructive thought.  What we are seeing today.

Case in point:

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by I_M4_AU
A better example.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

No. In fact I find that particular argument from authority pretty lazy from you lol. 

If citations supporting assertions is an argument from authority, then I plead guilty as charged. Thanks.

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Nope. Scalia makes some points but otherwise doesnt change good thinking. If we are to have Freedom of Religion, then we must have Freedom FROM Religion Dominance.

I will accept that you believe the Framers maintained a separationist view. How do you reconcile that view with the contrary examples that were cited? Alternatively, can you point to anything that supports your view?

Do you agree that the Framers, at the very least, acknowledged a supreme being?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:15 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

What if I told you that the Framers of the Constitution did not subscribe to a separationist view?

I would say you value ideology more than truth.  I would say you do not understand what pushed many to come to the colonies, the implications and realities.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I would say you value ideology more than truth.  I would say you do not understand what pushed many to come to the colonies, the implications and realities.

I know, ICHY, I know...

Now, give me some facepalms.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I know, ICHY, I know...

Now, give me some facepalms.

Interesting argument.  I now see the basis of your thinking.  Sorry for hurting your ideological feelings.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

I watch Maher every week. He used to be liberal, now I don’t know and I don’t he does either - both progressives and maga drive him equally crazy. Gen z’s he’s especially grumpy about. Smart, quick, edgy, funny, formidable - imo he’s required viewing by both sides.

Edited December 15, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,373]

"....deviant same sex intercourse should be a crime"

Even the Lesbian stuff???  LMAO!!!  

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

56 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

1) I will accept that you believe the Framers maintained a separationist view.

2) Do you agree that the Framers, at the very least, acknowledged a supreme being?

1) You don't?

2) May Christians accused Thomas Jefferson of atheism.  But more importantly, how is that relevant?

(One could ask the same question of Scalia - supposedly "originalism's chief architect" and opponent of judicial activism.)

Edited December 15, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 4,920]

The problem with being a new age conservative (I’m “old age”) - it’s supposedly all about individual rights, just mind your own business. Guns, foreign policy, regulations, ect. From light bulbs to Ukraine. But if it’s about Bob marrying Stan - which doesn’t affect them in any way, that’s still a big big big damn problem. Need laws and regulations for that.

My 2 cents - pick a train of thought and just stick with it. Be consistent.  Otherwise you just look kinda nuts.

Edited December 15, 2023 by auburnatl1

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

 Otherwise you just look kinda nuts.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) You don't?

2) May Christians accused Thomas Jefferson of atheism.  But more importantly, how is that relevant?

(One could ask the same question of Scalia - supposedly "originalism's chief architect" and opponent of judicial activism.)

I’m not understanding your point. But damn, I miss you Homer.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Interesting argument.  I now see the basis of your thinking.  Sorry for hurting your ideological feelings.

It’s okay. I forgive you.

[DKW 86 7,424]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If citations supporting assertions is an argument from authority, then I plead guilty as charged. Thanks.

I will accept that you believe the Framers maintained a separationist view. How do you reconcile that view with the contrary examples that were cited? Alternatively, can you point to anything that supports your view?

Do you agree that the Framers, at the very least, acknowledged a supreme being?

They did absolutely acknowledge a Supreme Being. Many were also Masons and basically rejected the role of a Savior Christ and failed back to works.

We had Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Puritans, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. Exactly whose theology are you gonna base the Nation on? When we elect A Catholic King of the White House are we going to see the Feds go all Jesuit on the rest of us? 

No, the thinking of a sane man should point toward sane rational thought that is based on a steady forward motion for the nation. 
Are we as people grounded in the faith? Yes
Were the fore fathers also grounded in 20+ different denominations of faith? Yes
But were we founded based on a theocracy model? No.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,373]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not understanding your point. But damn, I miss you Homer.

Simple questions. No "point" involved.

So, can we assume by your evasion you don't believe "the framers maintained a separationist view"?

Also, can we assume you think our perceived, deduced or assumed religious beliefs of the various founders takes precedent over what is actually written in our constitution?

Edited December 16, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, auburnatl1 said:

I watch Maher every week. He used to be liberal, now I don’t know and I don’t he does either - both progressives and maga drive him equally crazy. Gen z’s he’s especially grumpy about. Smart, quick, edgy, funny, formidable - imo he’s required viewing by both sides.

I agree with Maher more and more. I dont think the Classical Liberals moved at all. I think as Maher does that we have some 'Liberals' that "are so Open Minded that their brains have fallen out."

Edited December 16, 2023 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,424]