Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 176
Church and StatePage 8 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

You mean it doesn't exist here. Open your eyes. It should never be allowed to exist here. At least you can say, "Canada didit"


Pretty sure that chicken of yours is tired of you humping it.

The problem isn't with Sharia law, which DOES NOT EXIST in this country, but with CHRISTIAN theocracy, which I note again, you don't seem to have a problem with, which is making actual, disconcerting progress with, but all you keep doing is yelling, "Look over there! Muslims!"

We get it. You're ok with a Christian theocracy. Now, take your chicken some flowers.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 177
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 12:31:48 PM
We get it. Your ok with stoning women. Your ok with genocide. Your all good with that cuase it isn't here. Your all good with it. Lets jump on the liberalisim bandwagon and see the world as a place of love.

Got it. Don't you have a tree to hug?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 178
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:04:25 PM

Then why is it in all, or a majority of red states, that they have problems with women's rights to abortion, gay marriage, voter ID laws BUT no issues with lax gun laws, or racial profiling?


As long as it doesn't violate something in the Constitution, or any federal law or treaty, the majority in each state is free to regulate things as it sees fit. States are sovereigns that have an inherent general power to make laws and policies. Nothing says each of them has to regulate every action in just the same way.

As to the four things you mentioned, there is no absolute constitutional guarantee of abortion. States are free to allow it under all circumstances, or to discourage it in various ways or even prohibit it in some cases. According to the Supreme Court, the woman's right to abortion is balanced against the state's right to protect the life of the fetus.

States are free to make same-sex marriage legal, or not. Article IV of the Constitution requires each state to give "full Faith and Credit" to the "public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State," but it gives Congress power to say by law how those things are to be proved, and what effect they will have. Congress did that in the Defense of Marriage Act, and many states have passed laws which allow them not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Supreme Court has held there is no constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy.

Voting is a fundamental constitutional right, but not an absolute one. States are free to impose reasonable voting requirements--age and residency are two obvious grounds for restricting the right to vote.

The Court applied the Second Amendment to the states for the first time in our history in McDonald in 2010. It's clear no state can absolutely prohibit anyone from owning or possessing a gun. It's not clear just how much more states have to allow. Obviously they can require training courses for concealed carry, prohibit gun shows and ammunition sales in certain counties, deny guns to mental patients and felons and children, etc.

I don't know what "racial profiling" is, except jargon. Police can take race into account--if the men running out of the bank shooting were black, they can make that fact public along with any other information that might lead to their arrest. If five women who were raped in a town describe the rapist as a tall, skinny white man, police do not have to include short, fat blacks in the men they question, just to be fair. If it can be proven that racial animosity was the *only* reason for stopping and arresting a person, then there is a constitutional issue. The Constitution provides very little protection against race discrimination by private persons, as opposed to government.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 179
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:16:44 PM
Again with the strawman.

Did I SAY I was ok with stoning? Have I taken this conversation anywhere but in THIS country? NO. So spare me your silliness.

We are discussing church and state here in this country. Sharia is no theocratic threat in THIS country. Chrisitianity however, IS a theocratic threat. What extremists do to each other overseas doesn't concern me anymore, Uncle Sam can't send me a-visiting anymore.

My "Limited" experience, Paul K? You mean a year living in Kuwait and dealing with Kuwaiti and Iraqi muslims in addition to the people that live near me who I interact with every day isn't enough? OK, how about the year spent in Bosnia with those varying groups of muslims?

As opposed to.....your experience with actual living breathing muslims? How many years of close quarters, living cheek to jowl with the locals experience do you have, Paul? Hmm? Hours of Fox news and Rush Limbaugh blathering perhaps?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 180
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:13:20 PM

Canada banned it and in doing so that reinforced the separation of church and state and other faiths gave up that link as well.

Well, talk about "knowing virtually nothing about it"... First of all, there is NO doctrine of "separation of church and state" in Canada or its constitution, the concept simply doesn't exist in the way you frame it... Canada practices the doctrine of "benign neutrality" which means: Gov't CAN include and entertain religious considerations BUT it must do so equaly for ALL religion... Sharia was NOT banned, ALL religious arbitration was disallowed (hint: the other faiths did not "give up that link", they simply had no choice under the doctrine of benign neutrality. If they were allowed, Islam was allowed, if any one was not allowed then none could be allowed. It is not an issue where one can consider the others magnanimous in "giving it up", where a deal can be made)...

Reinforce the separation of church and state.

Kind of hard to do when the right-wing Republican a$$wipes are passing (or trying to pass) "god-centered" law left, right and center across the nation... And you worry about the rantings of "youtube warriors" while excusing the Republican efforts to do everything they can to promote "Christian law"...

Denounce Sharia and make a deal that no sharia means they must go back to their churches also.

LOL... Good luck with that notion in the US, the right-wingnuts will NEVER make that deal... They will continue to insist that "America is a Christian country" and "Islam is evil"... The deal you wish for will NEVER happen in the US, the Christian right would never agree to it...
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 181
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:15:34 PM

As far as christianity being a threat, like I said before, let me know when a group of theocrats changes the US Constitution so they can really make a difference.

I can only assume you where asleep during the prop 8 issue in California then.

As you would have to been not to know how the church influenced the outcome, with those tax free donations.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 182
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:28:00 PM
Um, Prohibition was brought in with a Constitutional change. That was a change that came out of a faith based movement.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 183
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:38:10 PM

So Prop. 8 changed the US Constitution?

Tell me how it accomplished that.....................

Easy, as decided by the courts it was unconstitutional, ergo it was an attempt to change the constitution.




By the way, did Prop. 8 permanently change the US Constitution, or just for a little while?

Nope, it was over turned, but only after a very expensive court battle, so you can thank the church for wasting your tax payer dollars.




And seeing how you mentioned the "tax free donations", I can only assume that you meant that those donations were illegal, right?

The donations where not illegal, but how there where used was.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 184
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:16:04 PM
Um, Prohibition was brought in with a Constitutional change. That was a change that came out of a faith based movement.


It is true that many people advocated prohibition because they considered drinking immoral, but it is not relevant to the issue of mixing church and state. The Eighteenth Amendment had no effect whatever on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The movement to end slavery was strongly associated with churches too, but that doesn't mean the Thirteenth Amendment impermissibly mingled church with state by banning it.


Easy, as decided by the courts it was unconstitutional, ergo it was an attempt to change the constitution.


Not so. Proposition 8 was an attempt to modify *California's* constitution. The California Supreme Court invalidated it for reasons involving the state constitution, not for violating anything in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Vaughan Walker, the federal judge who upheld the ruling, apparently based (or biased?) his decision on his personal dislike for Prop. 8 as a homosexual. If he had any legal reasons, he hid them so carefully in his opinion that most people haven't been able to find them.


The donations where not illegal, but how there where used was.


The he!! you say. Please identify the law and explain how using them that way violated it. I doubt you can.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 185
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 4:34:51 PM

The he!! you say. Please identify the law and explain how using them that way violated it. I doubt you can.

Challenge accepted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+mormon+church+%2B+proposition+8+%2B+illegal+funds
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 186
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 6:09:29 PM
The 2 issues of slavery and prohibition fit nicely with the current situation, with trying to regulate morality.

Prohibition was a call to regulate the morality of those who drank. Funny during prohibtion, not unlike our current situation, alot depended on your station in the current society. The rich never had a problem getting what they wanted, in terms of alcohol. They either stockpiled it before it started, or later got it from a "friend". The poor wound up with bath tub gin or grain alcohol, and wound up sick or dead.

Slavery, while embraced by the church, also was an abomination of humanity. Again, I guess it was good christian folk down south, who could point to their bibles and find passages that allowed them to sleep at night. Not unlike the conservatives of today, with their abortion/gay stances.

What is interesting is why the USA, was one of the last, "civilized" nations of the world to ban slavery. Also the rest of the world looked at us rather oddly and laughingly for prohibition. Not unlike they are doing today with the conservatives stance o healthcare.

For a nation so attuned to progress, new ideas and embracing new technologies, we seem to grasp the basic ideas of human care, so poorly. No, we would rather develop new bombs and missiles to kill men than work on things to save and cure them.

This thread is a great read for those who wish to understand just how backward the concept of conservative governence is truly is.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 187
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 6:36:07 PM
Your link is to the results of your Google search. I will not be reading through those results to try to prove your claims for you. Accusations that some church violated some unspecified law don't mean a thing. What is the name of the case, if any, in which what specific church, if any, was found guilty in court, on the evidence, of violating what specific law(s), if any, regarding donations?

You once cited an imaginary court case from a law school debating contest as a real decision, to prove something you'd claimed. I'm sure that was just an accident. Maybe you've had another similar accident here.

Re: #228

Your comments about prohibition and slavery are a small example of "history" a la Howard Zinn or Michael Moore. They sound like the sort of indictment of American culture the president's friend William Ayers would like to see our schoolkids being taught. They also have nothing whatever to do with the subject of the thread.

Someone had cited prohibition as an example of a predominately religious movement amending the Constitution. Apparently his purpose was to show how the church can improperly enter into a secular matter--the legality of alcohol. To rebut that, I pointed out that prohibition had done nothing to weaken the Establishment Clause's ban on theocracy, any more than had banning slavery by amendment, which was also a cause a lot of Christians had supported.

 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 188
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 6:38:36 PM

Your link is to the results of your Google search. I will not be reading through those results to try to prove your claims for you. Accusations that some church violated some unspecified law don't mean a thing. What is the name of the case, if any, in which what specific church, if any, was found guilty in court, on the evidence, of violating what specific law(s), if any, regarding donations?

California Ethics Commission finds Mormons guilty on 13 counts of late Prop 8 campaign reporting

Arleen Garcia-Herbst
San Diego LGBT Issues Examiner

SACRAMENTO, CA – On June 11th, the FPPC, in an unprecedented ruling against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, found the Salt Lake City based Church guilty on 13 counts of late campaign reporting. The Mormon Church was fined $5538 in an agreement worked out ending the 19 month long investigation. The Church was the primary backer of California’s Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California two years ago.

The Mormon Church initially admitted to spending only $2078 to pass Prop 8. When Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, filed his sworn complaint on November 13, 2008, he said they instantly attacked him

Continue reading on Examiner.com California Ethics Commission finds Mormons guilty on 13 counts of late Prop 8 campaign reporting - San Diego lgbt issues

Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/lgbt-issues-in-san-diego/california-ethics-commission-finds-mormons-guilty-on-13-counts-of-late-prop-8-campaign-reporting#ixzz1rDhtCrl1
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 189
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 7:03:18 PM

Your link is to the results of your Google search. I will not be reading through those results to try to prove your claims for you. Accusations that some church violated some unspecified law don't mean a thing. What is the name of the case, if any, in which what specific church, if any, was found guilty in court, on the evidence, of violating what specific law(s), if any, regarding donations?



I often find that it is better to speak about those things that one knows about, or is willing to learn about, but then that's me...not this guy^:


On June 11th, the FPPC, in an unprecedented ruling against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, found the Salt Lake City based Church guilty on 13 counts of late campaign reporting. The Mormon Church was fined $5538 in an agreement worked out ending the 19 month long investigation. The Church was the primary backer of California’s Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California two years ago.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 190
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 7:25:39 PM
This was never litigated, apparently. The Mormon Church in Utah paid $5,000 or so in fines as part of the settlement agreement. I grant there was at least a valid question about their donations. But the very fact someone filed a complaint with the state commission and it acted shows there is a mechanism in place to require churches to report their contributions to political contests. Considering the large margin by which the proposition was approved, it's hard to imagine a few thousand bucks would have changed the result.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 191
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 7:56:06 PM
Ahhh... the peanut gallery!

Yes there are places where people are still slaves, even if they aren't called that. Like china with it's locked in factories, or governments that change leaders like people change shirts.

I was referring to more democratic forms of government which had banned the use of slaves earlier. Even Britain banned them before us, and they had the whole empire. They may have treated certain groups of people badly, but didn''t own them.

As for my other fan, you seem to want to pigeon hole everyone based on someones outlook. From the beginning of this thread, I have mantained it is your right to believe, practice and worship who or what you want. I believe though, based on those beliefs, you have no right to dictate to me or others what we believe or enforce YOUR beliefs on us.

One of the problems with organized religion, as opposed to christian beliefs garnered from the bible, is small minds can limit what you think or how you view it. Don't forget, according to the inquistion, I believe one of their beliefs was that science was bad, and therefore the earth was flat! Thaat from a leading christian think group of the day!

It clearly shows how small minds can really be, when they cannot actually accept a social commentary on how those things were viewed not only here but by the world at large.

I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but even you must admit some of his films are thought provoking. Or perhaps it is just that you don't like him because he is a liberal. I suppose you like 'a small example of history' in the new textbooks that rewrite history, to tone down things and present incredibly wrong things, in the best light? Or perhaps to leave out evolution, since you can't explain the dinsaours, maybe they were planted by someone, right?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 192
Church and State
Posted: 4/5/2012 8:36:20 PM

This was never litigated, apparently. The Mormon Church in Utah paid $5,000 or so in fines as part of the settlement agreement. I grant there was at least a valid question about their donations. But the very fact someone filed a complaint with the state commission and it acted shows there is a mechanism in place to require churches to report their contributions to political contests. Considering the large margin by which the proposition was approved, it's hard to imagine a few thousand bucks would have changed the result.

They did report their contributions, but missed a bit of it when they where declaring the amount.

They total forgot about about ~99% of what they had actually contributed.

Then they publicly admitted guilt.


Your failure to see that, is your failure.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 193
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 12:55:48 AM
Even Britain banned them before us, and they had the whole empire.


I think you'll find slavery existed in the British colonies in the West Indies even after it was abolished here. In any case, if in a country of less than 40 million, the blood of 350,000 dead Union boys didn't atone for slavery in the U.S., nothing ever could. Scaled to today's population, that is like having two thousand soldiers killed every single day, for four years. I don't care if all, or some, or none of them liked blacks. It was through their deaths--and many of them died horribly--that slavery was ended.


but even you must admit some of his films are thought provoking. Or perhaps it is just that you don't like him because he is a liberal.


Never seen one, and I don't find anything thought-provoking about Moore, or any other lying degenerate. I know how much he despises this country--that's to be expected from so-called liberals. But I notice he still parks his fat carcass in the U.S.


when they cannot actually accept a social commentary on how those things were viewed not only here but by the world at large.


I don't give a pinch of owl dung how "the world at large"--whoever that may be--views anything about this country. Let them worry about their own.


I suppose you like 'a small example of history' in the new textbooks that rewrite history, to tone down things and present incredibly wrong things, in the best light?


I haven't read any public school history texts in years, but I suspect many of them might has well have been printed in the old USSR. U.S. history compares very well with the history of other countries I know of. There's not a nation on earth--Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Sweden, Italy, Argentina, Germany, Mexico, Poland, India, Spain, Turkmenistan, you name it--that any American should feel the least need to bow to.


Or perhaps to leave out evolution, since you can't explain the dinsaours, maybe they were planted by someone, right?


I think most reasonably knowledgeable people these days know that The Prince of Darkness had his demons plant the bones of those prehistoric creatures. It's part of his evil plan to mislead mankind and lure us away from the path of righteousness.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 194
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 8:24:58 AM
This I have to hear. Paul, please detail for us your extensive experience with members of the muslim religion.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 195
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 11:37:15 AM
"Never seen one"

That's the thing, like I said, you need to examine what's true and what's not. Because someone does not agree with the course of the nation, does not make them a "lying degenerate" or mean they "despises this country", it merely means they think it should change course. Not unlike you and the thumpers and your crusade against abortion.

"I don't give a pinch of owl dung"

Yet another false statement. You and the others just ranted for 3 pages on shiriah law, which has nothing to do with the USA. So you must be talking about other countries. Life doesn' happen in a vacum, nor does trade with the world, so our image as viewed by the world does count.

"I think most reasonably knowledgeable people these days know that the prince of darkness had his demons plant the bones of those prehistoric creatures."

There are no words for this statement. It took 20 minutes to clean the coffee from my keyboard after reading it. Seriously, seek help...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 196
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 12:14:00 PM
Not unlike you and the thumpers and your crusade against abortion.


What a silly statement. I personally am not opposed to abortion, and I certainly have never crusaded against it. But I defend the right of people who do oppose abortion to restrict it by law, within the limits of the Constitution. It is the extremists who want abortion on demand to be the law throughout the U.S. who are trying to ignore the Constitution and impose their will on the majority that does not.


Yet another false statement.


Just as silly. My statements of opinion, like anyone's, are neither true nor false. "False" applies to statements of fact. I don't know what you mean by "you and the others." I speak for myself only, and what I said about shariah is well-documented fact.

I'll rephrase it: I don't care a d**n what the "world community" or anyone in it thinks--or what some petulant propagandist on the Daily Kos claims it thinks--about the United States. It has never been, and should never be, the aim of American foreign policy to please any foreign nation or people.


There are no words for this statement.


You seem to have found some, however.
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 197
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 12:41:56 PM
OyVay@
"Because someone does not agree with the course of the nation, does not make them a 'lying degenerate' or mean trhey 'despises his country' it merely means they think it should change course."

It also shouldn't mean they are "thumpers", "baggers", "fascists", "McCartyites", etc., etc., etc. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, as well.

I think the country should change course, too, but I suspect you want it to go in another direction than I do. I think the imputation that 'conservatives' are somehow motivated by 'morality' more than 'liberals' is a red herring and an attempt to distract from the actual issues at stake.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 198
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 1:02:40 PM
But I defend the right of people who do oppose abortion to restrict it by law, within the limits of the Constitution. It is the extremists who want abortion on demand to be the law throughout the U.S. who are trying to ignore the Constitution and impose their will on the majority that does not.


I'll just note that you never defend the right of those who believe in prochoice, and sometimes are the majority in states with restrictive abortion laws, to lobby for their right to chose...the evangelical wingnut rightist isn't the only law of the land regardless of what some people think.


I think most reasonably knowledgeable people these days know that the prince of darkness had his demons plant the bones of those prehistoric creatures


This would be funny...if only some from the evangelical right didn't think it was true.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 199
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 1:21:59 PM

I'll just note that you never defend the right of those who believe in prochoice, and sometimes are the majority in states with restrictive abortion laws, to lobby for their right to chose


Maybe because it's so obvious they have that right that very few people question it. Any state where the majority wants unrestricted abortion can make that the law, just as was true before Roe in 1973.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 200
Church and State
Posted: 4/6/2012 1:26:30 PM

Maybe because it's so obvious they have that right that very few people question it. Any state where the majority wants unrestricted abortion can make that the law, just as was true before Roe in 1973.


No, what is obvious is if a group of people protest, or just discuss their disagreement with restrictive abortion laws, then you term these people, who excercise their right to protest or even discuss statist brown shirted communist socialist nazi's and feminazi's...and when you do...you show exactly what your true beliefs are.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State