Interesting that you point out the lack of affidavit character (not being under oath), and then turn around and suggest that its purpose was to help the Supreme Court Justices in interpreting the establishment clause. The reason I find that interesting, is the fact that for any information to be considered by those justices, the information being reviewed has to be 'under oath'. Therefore, the Supreme Court Justices violated their own rules in giving such consideration in the light of the information not being under oath. Why should we take his word over the word of others? He actually helped write the item in question, while you and other Christians that want to contend with what is in that letter did not have a hand in creating said item. Why would Shakespeare or Stephen King have more say than anyone else on what's in any of their work? For the same reason that those same tactics are used by some of the opponents (non-theists) when desire to degrade the discussion and the person they are addressing. My personal philosophy utilized here is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." If they can dish it out, then so can I. I do recall mentioning that to several persons on this forum, but do not recall anyone requesting an explanation for such. Please refresh my memory on which thread that was in. Once again, show the link so that I know precisely what you are referencing. At this point, your statements are merely statements. My stats show that I have posted quite a good number of postings. Surely you don't expect me to recall the details of everyone of those postings. So be the sport and lead me to what you are referencing. What about it? Like I said above. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So, if the shoe fits, then wear it. If the person to whom it was directed does not feel the need to address the issue any further, then seemingly the shoe must have fit and the person continues to wear that shoe. Have you ever considered the legal expressions of "acceptance" and "acquiescence"? They apply to the transactions in this forum as well as they do outside this forum. 1: The TOS. That is the one good reason. 2: You are not a moderator, and you don't possess the authority to make any official statement about who is or who is not a troll. Therefore, your claim about being a 'troll' is meaningless to me.
@Danboy Where is the line drawn? Anywhere that involves funding by taxes. @Incorporeal I don't need a title or position to recognize a troll or express as much and while I have no say on your activities, I have no obligation to take part in them either. I don't owe you a thing. We're done.
And another one bites the dust. Yeppir, another one decides that it is time to leave the battlefield. Another fine example of 'Acquiescence'.
I don't know what battlefield you speak of, but I haven't gone anywhere. This supposed acquiescence is exactly the type of game I have no time for anymore. When you can have an honest exchange without the BS, let me know. It wasn't just lip service when I said I thought you were intelligent. This character that does unto others before they do unto him however is a serious snore. I know there's quality content just screaming to get out of you and look forward to that day. Take care.
Straw man. He did not say its purpose was to help the Supreme Court Justices, only that it was used by them. This fact is quite obvious, since the letter was written to a church. Read the letter. Oh, the beautiful irony.
Yeppir: Yours is a straw argument. The author of the posting stated "The letter is not used in any legal sense except for helping Supreme Court Justices in interpreting the establishment clause." Learn to read. Nowhere did I address the contents of the letter what the author of the letter stated about the letter. Ironic is the fact that you comment so little on that TOS rule application.
Someone needs to learn to read, but it isn't me. No where in that quote did he say or imply that the purpose of the letter was to help Supreme Court Justices, only that it is used that way. Do you not understand the difference? Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about this (or maybe you still would ).
Do you not understand that you are taking up your argument with the wrong person? I am not the one who made the statement about the intended purpose. Take you lame argument up with the rightful one who made the statement.
Spot on. I didn't, and I'll do the courtesy of explaining it further so as to stave off further misunderstanding. The Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson, first to congratulate him on his inauguration and second to express concern over a small issue with the Constitution where they, a minority, would not be treated in the same way as the larger or better affiliated groups. They also recognized and agreed with Jefferson's own professions about how religion should remain strictly between an individual and God. Jefferson's response was as measured and edited and carefully stated as the first amendment itself. Not only did he have to make himself clear on a divisive topic to begin with, but he had to do so without compromising his presidency or the government itself by infuriating those other religious groups. The Baptists were concerned with how favor should be dispensed amongst the various religious groups, whether one group or another would receive excess benefit or be stripped of benefits on the whims of a state legislature because the Constitution does not define what exactly 'religion' is. Jefferson explains in those very carefully selected words that 'the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, not opinions' and more importantly, how the chosen limit on Congress CREATED a wall of separation between church and state because the best way to ensure that the government could not abuse which group it gave favors to or held back favors from was by preventing them the ability to manipulate favor either way, thus leaving religion to be a matter between an individual and God while making the actions carried out due to those beliefs a thing that can be judged on by Congress and the courts. The intended purpose of that letter to the Danbury Baptists was to assure them of their fair treatment by explaining how that portion of the first amendment operates, and by extension the entire first amendment. That was the intended purpose of the letter. It's unintended use is another matter. We jump 70+ years past when the letter was written to the Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. United States(1878-1879) wherein a Mormon man who had been charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act tried to defend himself in several ways, one of which happened to be that it was his 'religious duty' to marry multiple women if in any way possible. The Justices of course recognized that per the first amendment that they could not prohibit the free exercise of religion, but they hit the same snag the Danbury Baptists did over 70 years prior; the Constitution does not contain a definition of what religion is. The Justices did the only thing they could in order to reach a decision regarding the accused bigamist; they opened an investigation into the history of religious freedom in the US and as part of that investigation, Jefferson's letter was brought to light as being a clearly authoritative voice on the subject at hand. The court considered that if they allowed bigamy based solely on the grounds of 'religious duty' that eventually someone might try to do the same with a human sacrifice or something just as unacceptable in civil society. They recoognized that not only is there a difference between belief and the action that flows from beliefs but that clearly Jefferson was on point with the idea of a wall of separation between church and state was the intention of at least that section of the first amendment and the best way to enusre the stability of both. The Mormon was shot down and the final decision was that 'religious duty' was not a valid excuse for not obeying the law: 'To allow this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.' Yes Virginia, there is a real separation between church and state even though there are agents on both sides trying to blast holes in that wall. And that's all I have to say about that. For ths sticklers that want links and citations: www.google.com It's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. Good luck.
Ah, but in spite of your lame rationalizations, the comment regarding the purpose of the letter, was not a part of the content of the letter, but rather it was your comment which I was addressing. It is you that declared a purpose for that letter. Therefore, your attempt below to explain the content is meaningless. It is your comment that was the issue being discussed... not the content of the letter.
What you were addressing was your lame misrepresentation of my position. What I was addressing was how and why the separation of church and state does exist, why it is beneficial for all concerned parties and what my actual positions are to hopefully prevent them being misrepresented again. Adjust your score card accordingly kids.
An overview of the scorecards, clearly show that there has been no points given. In other words, you have not shown where you have proven that there is a 'separation of church and state' in contrast to the fact that an office holder carries with him/her the past teachings/convictions/beliefs, that were founded on either religious or non-religious based information, nor have you proven that such an alleged separation has influenced legislation so as to provide and absolute recognition that such separation exists. With public officials passing into either state or Federal law, such legislation as a Prayer day, it seems obvious that such separation does not exist.
Gee, one red herring built on another. More games. I won't be showing those and never had to. What you describe is a mischaracterization, done apparently willfully and with knowledge to the contrary. You might as well have said I didn't show how the separation works in light of taking away their sugary cereal or morning paper. The separation of church and state refers to religious belief and the legislative process, not an individual and their beliefs, which is actually what that separation protects.
Then explain how there exists legislation which plainly originates from religious belief... ie... a National Prayer day and a state Prayer day. Both approved by the corresponding legislative bodies. You cannot explain it other than to admit that there is no separation of Church and State. Red Herrings would probably have a much more delightful taste than would your 'straw' arguments.
Legislation like that stems from representatives either serving their own interests or the interests of dominionist contributors. It's done by cherry picking the parts of the first amendment protecting free speech and free exercise while ignoring the equally important part about making no law regarding an establishment of religion and a prayer day is specifcally that; an establishment of religion. This is why every time it is tried now it gets successfully overturned when found correctly to be unconstitutional. If that is actually a law anywhere, don't bother getting used to it. It'll be gone before you know it. By the way, a strawman argument is when a person's argument or position is replaced with something easier to defeat, sometimes to ignore the original argument, sometimes to go for the easy win and sometimes just because the dishonest one can't admit defeat or just simply that they were wrong. An actual strawman would be like how you twisted what I said the intent of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was. When I explained clearly that the letter's intent was to assure the Baptists and you tried twisting it into an affidavit and when that failed then saying that I said it was for the purposes of the Supreme Court. For someone who spends so much time being an anal pest about the meanings and usage of words, that is a fairly huge slip up, not to mention a stunning display of hypocrisy, once again. Especially when I have never misrepresented any of your positions or arguments even once. Game over. Is there anything else I can help you with?
You can rationalize it in anyway that you desire. However, at the end of the day, that piece of legislation carried with it all the earmarks of there not being any separation of Church and State. Oh my! Are your feathers now feeling a little ruffled? It sounds like you are now trying to be a prognosticator. Well time will tell. Did I say 'strawman' ? No? Hmmm. The record speaks for itself with regard to who said what and when those things were said. Therefore, the game is not over... the comments are still in the record. Yeah... Try a little harder to prove a point. You failed when you attempted to rationalize a legislation that clearly has religious import, thus proving that there is no separation of Church and State.
Pointing out facts is not rationalizing just because you don't like those facts and if I was actually wrong you'd be able to show how instead of just claiming I was rationalizing and make no mistake, I am inviting you to do so. Show me ONE case of a prayer day type legislation that is more than a month old that has survived review by a Supreme Court and has not been found unconstitutional. Good luck with that though. It is precisely because legislation like that has a specific religious import that gets it overturned when it's found to be unconstitutional because there specifically is a wall of separation between church and state created by the first amendment. Your actual words were "'straw' argument", which is a misuse of the term strawman argument unless you're creating phrases on the fly, which is totally useless without sharing the meaning of them as well. I could be wrong but if we continue on this trajectory you're gonna have to teach your ass to type if that's going to be the sole source of your words and secret phrases.
Show me such a case that has been before the Supreme Court. It seems that the FFRF case itself was overturned, by a federal court. As for a legislation that is more than a month old and has survived.... http://www.christianpost.com/news/court-throws-out-lawsuit-against-national-day-of-prayer-49833/ Why is it a misuse of the term 'strawman' when I never referenced that term. Intentionally used the term "straw" as a way of showing what type of construction grade materials your argument was made of. Weak and worthless material. Like in the story of the Three Pigs... most everyone knows what happened to the house made of 'straw'. Blown away with the mere 'huff and a puff'. Again, your lack of reading comprehension and your consistent use of the crutch called presumption, has led you astray. And if we are gonna continue on this trajectory, you are gonna have to get your head out of your arse so that you can think straight. Let me give it to you again. http://www.christianpost.com/news/court-throws-out-lawsuit-against-national-day-of-prayer-49833/
Your link is to the overturning of the FFRF case, where a federal judge found the national day of prayer to be unconstitutional. It was thrown out on a technicality of there not being an injured party, not because being found unconstitutional was wrong. It hasn't made the Supreme Court yet, but when it does you can rest assured you will see how hollow that appeal victory was all along. Keep in mind you haven't made any case for there not being a separation of church and state yet either. Now, as for jumping from a logical fallacy of red herrings to a 'straw' argument meaning building materials, this was one of the worst episodes of backpeddling I have ever witnessed. You're not fooling anyone. Save yourself future humiliation and just stop.
Let's get back on track and keep this very simple. I've got over two dozen instances of the Supreme Court agreeing that there is a separation of church and state, none where they say there isn't while you tell me there isn't and the only thing to back up your opinions are word games and red herrings. The wall exists. Full stop.
Then there is the case that is older than one month and it is in reference to a piece of legislation wherein a religious practice was legislated and has survived. The case I cited is the only case that is necessary, because the dynamics of that legislation when put in practice proves that there is no separation of Church and State. Practical application of the legislation is the proof. Just because you have been proven wrong with you "dare" to show you a case, you now attempt to start your projections of your inadequacy. The FFRF built there case out of 'straw' and as such, the wind of the court blew it away. You seem to forget that 75.9 % of the population of the United States are self proclaimed Christian. Don't delude yourself any further by thinking that any future attempts at such legal action will be any more successful than what was shown in the link that I provided.
Again. Very simple and direct. The Supreme Court has upheld over two dozen times that there is a wall of separation between church and state courtesy of the first amendment. Then there's you with the games and the nonsense saying there isn't. You're wrong and you're done.
Julius Caesar died 44 years before Jesus was born (if we assume the Jesus was born in 0 AD). After Julius Caesar's death, Roman Emperors used the title of Caesar. So Jesus wasn't referencing a man, he was referencing an office/position thus he is talking about a State government.
No I am not done. That is another one of your delusions. You obviously have no concept of how the mind of man works. Example: Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to believe you if you were to tell them that you obey every man made law that has been put on the books? Well, guess what.. the legislators are human also, and they do break the law... even those laws that they make. ... When it comes to this matter, you are definitely living in a fantasy world where you want to think that everyone is perfect and that no-one breaks a law. . . Let me know when you actually find that utopia.
Interesting. Anno Domini (the year of our Lord). Was that year designated based on the year that he was born or the year that he died? According to this article it reflects the year that Jesus was born. However, when you read the history portion of this article, you find that the creator of the Anno Domini system of calendar dates, "much less does he explain or justify the underlying date." So you see, there is still a lot of confusion on the part of the SCHOLARS with regard to the actual date. Nice try, but try again. Your dates cannot be verified, and can only be guessed.
