“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

And a lack of religious iconography, is the promotion of a lack of religion on government property. Which favors the atheist and no one else.

 

Would you have a problem with other religions if they were being pushed onto your children, such as that school teacher starting every morning by leading the kids in the Shidaha? So long as your child is technically not forced to of course.

The alternative is state endorsement of a particular relgion. I don't believe you are ok with that if it isn't yours. Am I wrong? I have asked you this numerous times now, and you have never responded.

 

I told you I don’t have a problem with the state favoring one religion over another even if it isn’t mine as long as those two protections remain in place. I already said this. That’s the same view the founders had when they rejected language in the first amendment which would have constitutionally and explicitly forbidden favoring one religion over another. And furthermore they rejected the idea that these types of restrictions be placed on the states. They ONLY wanted them applied to the federal government.

Madison attempted to argue pretty forcefully that they should be applied to the states but he was rejected. Which means the founders had NO PROBLEM with a state making laws which favored one religion over another including having a state religion if they do chose. Which several of them did.

 

It is not an appeal to authority. It is a legal fact that you must or should accept. However, the fallacy of your argument is that you ignore certain realities. The 13th was adopted legally by 3/4 of the states when none of the Southern States that rebelled were even in the Union at that time. Those 13 states were admitted later, no later than the 1870s, early 1870s, and whatever amendments that have been passed, and ratified by the states, were accepted when they rejoined the union.

 

NO IT IS NOT

Lack of Coca Cola iconography is not a promotion of a lack of Coca Cola.

 

Uhh no sir. The union did not have the required votes to pass it with only 20 states because 6 of those northern states refused to ratify until AFTER the southern states had been FORCED to ratify and it was becoming law either way.

 

If all you have is water and sugary drinks and you ban sugary drinks.

There’s only one thing left standing to promote. Water. It’s called promotion by exclusion. Look it up.

 

I must have missed you saying that previously. I remain skeptical if you would hold that view if your religion wasn't the dominant one in your state.
I do have a problem with my tax dollars funding a state that favours a particular religion over others and endorses it to the exclusion of others.
My concern is not so much the iconography, as what it represents, and I do not trust the government who explicitly endorses a religion not to push that religion onto people, as has been the case historically here.

 

Want a good example of promotion by exclusion?

Disney redid some of their movies to be less offensive. Taking some lines out and editing others. They have taken all of the old ones off of their platform. They’re not really promoting the new ones anymore than they were but it’s considered promotion through exclusion because once you remove all the other options you’re promoting the only options left by default.

 

I would. Now I might move if it got too overwhelming. That was the beauty of the way the founders set it up. You didn’t like that South Carolina had a state religion? Move to Oregon where they don’t have one. You don’t like that Oregon doesn’t have a state religion move to South Carolina where they have one.

The founders didn’t want the federal government making those decisions because then your only option is to leave the country entirely.

 

Saying you can't promote sugary drinks on government property is NOT "banning sugary drinks"

 

That’s really where the downfall of this country came from. The concept our founders created was destroyed when the federal government took over authority from the states with the supremacy clause.

 

It is if you’ve got 20 vending machines with water.

 

Nope, leave the government building and go to the 7-11 across the street and buy all the sugary drinks you want.

 

The concept our founders created was destroyed the second they allowed slavery. IOW, since the very beginning.

 

Nope, it's simply saying that Disney no longer wanted to promote the old viewpoints that allowed those movies or lines.

Not putting "Song of the South" on their streaming service does not "promote" anything. It's simply Disney not wishing to promote the stereotypes in that movie

 

Wtf are you talking about bro. If you ban everything EXCEPT one thing then how is that not promotion of that one thing? Are you creating a parody posting account or something?

 

That’s absurd. But nice to know how you feel about the founding lol

 

WTF are YOU talking about? Not allowing promotion of something is NOT the same thing as promoting everything else.

 

Really, "All men are created equal" wasn't undermined by the fact that Africans were, under the law, not created equal?

 

How are all men created equal if there is no god? Morality is subjective right? So if the morality at the time said that blacks weren’t considered men, that’s perfectly fine right?

Cause you and I both know that the “all men are created equal” relies upon the next part. That their CREATOR endowed them with rights.

Now what’s rights do you have without the creator? You only have the rights they say you have. And they said blacks didn’t have em. Which is fine because morality is subjective. So their view that blacks didn’t have rights is just as valid as your view that they do.

What’s the problem?

 

Yes it is. For instance. Not allowing a discussion on creationism while you push theories such as evolution INHERENTLY tells the Christian they’re wrong and their views aren’t as important as yours.

 

1. Your very post undermines your whole argument. "Not allowing a discussion on creationism while you push theories such as evolution..." You admit that NOT allowing promotion of something does not promote something else. You stated that NOT allowing one thing WHILE PUSHING SOMETHING else is completely different then your claim of not promoting X (while NOT pushing the promotion of something else) does not, in fact, promote something else.

2. In the particular case of creationism vs. evolution the views of creationism are, in fact, not as important as the views of evolution. Evolution is the basis for our entire understanding of biology. The entire medical field is dependent on the Theory of Evolution. There is NO area of knowledge dependent on creationism being true. Even the area of knowledge called theology is not dependent on creationism being true. So, the refusal to allow public schools to teach creationism is not a bias against religion, it's a bias to teach the facts.

 

1. It doesn’t undermine anything. Y’all do both. You favor the non-religious implicitly and explicitly.

2. Unfortunately for you those “facts” become “myths” all the time. But you still taught them as facts

 

Now that you've lost the argument about not allowing promotion of one thing promotes something else you want to move onto morality? Fine

Secular (that is non theistic) morality is superior to a theistic morality in every conceivable way. A theistic morality is not dependent on determining right and wrong. It's determined by the dictates of a god you can't even prove exists.

ALL areas of knowledge (including morality) are improved by two things, observation and reason. Our views on morality improve over time because we observe the effects of our outdated morality and use reason to determine that those ideas are wrong.

For example, at one time it was believed that light moved through a medium called the Ether. It was based on the observations and the reason of the time. That didn't make it right. Observation and reason has led to our current ideas of light and how it propagates.

At the time of the Constitution our views on morality allowed us to own other human beings. That didn't make it right. Observation and reason has led to our current ideas on how slavery is morally wrong.

If you want to stick with a theistic morality, at the time of the Constitution slavery was allowed because the Bible said it was allowed. Nothing has changed in the Bible, nor has any concrete message been received by God to tell us that slavery is morally wrong...so by YOUR theistic morality slavery is still allowed.

Do you agree that slavery is moral? If you do then you're an awful human being and if you don't then you are replacing your God's morality with your own.

As Penn Jillette says at the beginning of his book "God, No!" If God told you to kill your child, would you do it? If your answer is no, in my booklet, you're an atheist. There is doubt in your mind. Love and morality are more important to you than your faith. If your answer is yes, please reconsider.