Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-28-2002, 08:33 AM

It seems clear that randman seems to agree with most nontheist members that the principle of the separation of church and state--that the state cannot impose any particular religious statements--is a Good Thing.

The arguments seem to be very abstract disagreements about the origin of this principle. However, it is not clear if or how these disagreements affect the interpretation of this principle.

Is this understanding correct, or am I missing something?

Writer@Large · 03-28-2002, 09:15 AM

The only thing I see it affecting is the veracity of the claim that this is a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian Principles." Which still doesn't explain why seven of the ten Commandments would be Constitutionally unsound ...

--W@L

[Editted 'cuz me no rite gud ... ]

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>

Toto · 03-28-2002, 09:34 AM

The Randman's last post indicated he was going off on a trip, probably spring break, so you might have to wait for an answer.

I have tried to comb through his logorrhea to make sense of it, and this is what I get:

Church-state separation is now acknowledged to be a Good Thing, therefore Christians must have thought of it first. True Christians, not those imposters who pretended to be Christians for most of the last 2000 years.

The American Revolution was a Christian uprising, the first to establish True Christianity, which nevertheless finds its roots in the real words of Jesus and those few dissident sects, that can be discovered only with meticulous research, who didn't believe that heretics should be burned at the stake.

BUT - Church-state separation must be redefined to allow a pro-religion tilt to governmental policies, to allow Christians to continue to propagate "global theism" which is necessary for peace and prosperity. This is because atheism leads directly to communism, as well as woeful ignorance of history. Church-State separation only means that there is no established church, but I bet randman approves of prayer at football games and in schools and nativity scenes at City Hall.

Perhaps when randman returns he will confirm or deny this summary of his thinking.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-28-2002, 12:12 PM

Toto

Since your summary is blatantly contradictory (as I'm sure you're aware), I suppose we shall have to await randman's return and clarification.

Toto · 03-28-2002, 12:42 PM

Young Mal - if you are waiting for clarification from randman, you have clearly missed the point.

But I defy you or randman to show that my summary is not accurate.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto · 03-31-2002, 10:59 PM

*bump* to get randman's attention when he gets back from spring break.

03-28-2002, 08:33 AM	#1
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	Randman, what's the controversy? It seems clear that randman seems to agree with most nontheist members that the principle of the separation of church and state--that the state cannot impose any particular religious statements--is a Good Thing. The arguments seem to be very abstract disagreements about the origin of this principle. However, it is not clear if or how these disagreements affect the interpretation of this principle. Is this understanding correct, or am I missing something?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2002, 09:15 AM	#2
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	The only thing I see it affecting is the veracity of the claim that this is a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian Principles." Which still doesn't explain why seven of the ten Commandments would be Constitutionally unsound ... --W@L [Editted 'cuz me no rite gud ... ] [ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>

03-28-2002, 09:34 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Randman's last post indicated he was going off on a trip, probably spring break, so you might have to wait for an answer. I have tried to comb through his logorrhea to make sense of it, and this is what I get: Church-state separation is now acknowledged to be a Good Thing, therefore Christians must have thought of it first. *True* Christians, not those imposters who pretended to be Christians for most of the last 2000 years. The American Revolution was a Christian uprising, the first to establish True Christianity, which nevertheless finds its roots in the real words of Jesus and those few dissident sects, that can be discovered only with meticulous research, who didn't believe that heretics should be burned at the stake. BUT - Church-state separation must be redefined to allow a pro-religion tilt to governmental policies, to allow Christians to continue to propagate "global theism" which is necessary for peace and prosperity. This is because atheism leads directly to communism, as well as woeful ignorance of history. Church-State separation only means that there is no established church, but I bet randman approves of prayer at football games and in schools and nativity scenes at City Hall. Perhaps when randman returns he will confirm or deny this summary of his thinking.

03-28-2002, 12:12 PM	#4
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	Toto Since your summary is blatantly contradictory (as I'm sure you're aware), I suppose we shall have to await randman's return and clarification.

03-28-2002, 12:42 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Young Mal - if you are waiting for clarification from randman, you have clearly missed the point. But I defy you or randman to show that my summary is not accurate. [ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

03-31-2002, 10:59 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	bump to get randman's attention when he gets back from spring break.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.