Keeping church n state separate is to keep state out of the church. Not the other way around .
That's why settlers left England where state ran through the church.
That's not why he wanted God out of the pledge. This guy was a communist. There are many regular people who think like that, but communists also want religion out of government. Their reasoning is because they want to use government to destroy religion.
It might sound like a nice idea on paper, but it gets used against people with the wrong religion. This guy claimed he was a baptists, but ran around pushing a very obvious communist agenda under the name of christianity.
There is a lot of literature by communists talking about infiltrating religious institutions like the church just to spread communism. (Read "On A Pale Horse").
Do you agree with him that "Under God" should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance?
The "Under God" has been infuriating to the DS for a long time. I remember how crazy the media has pushed over the years to get it out.
Btw, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution. That is a myth that gets pushed by the media. They spread that lie over and over to try and convince people it's in the Constitution.
Morality can and does exist outside of a religious context. One does not need to be religious or follow religious preaching in order to still be moral.
There are many theories on moral philosophy. quite a few of which are of an atheistic nature ... But why would one to adhere to morality without an eternal benefit/punishment is an intresting question and yet it does exist.
Because it's not right to kill people? Because I don't feel good when I lie? Because I don't want to rape someone? I'm more terrified of people who only adhere to morality because they're promised heaven instead of hell. If people can't find reasons to be moral other than avoiding hell, then they're probably not very moral to begin with, and I'd most definitely want to avoid such people.
Fishy if I actually take the time to debate you on this will you respond this time? You never respond when people take the time to debate you. You seem to like playing Devil Advocate's whenever you comment.
You always just drop into posts and cry "ThAt's nOt tRuE!" and then never show the guts to debate them.
Will you actually reply and debate here? I'm starting to wonder if you're a bot from how often you do it. It's getting weird.
Many people reply many things to the things I post here while playing devil's advocate at times, or trying to just get logical arguments out of people. I'd spend a lot of time on GAW just sorting through reply notifications and taking the time to continue conversations vs seeing other posts people put up. And yes iM_a ReAl Pers0n. If your feelings get hurt when people don't feel like it's worth debating your every comment, then maybe you're not made for the internet. I don't have unlimited supplies of time and energy.
If your feelings get hurt when people don't feel like it's worth debating your every comment, then maybe you're not made for the internet.
It's very funny that you regard it that way. That you assume people's feeling are hurt by your opinion. You immediately assume that your opinion is based on logic and that their opinion is not.
Yet I have seen you miss the point (entirely) and base your opinions only your personal speculations. (Which is fine, but have the guts to acknowledge it) When people call you out on your poorly-thought out opinions you take it as "they just can't handle the truth". You immediately dismiss people's arguments.
I don't have unlimited supplies of time and energy
But other people do? If you don't have the time to waste on an actual discussion then why do you bother wasting other people's time here? This is a discussion board.
trying to just get logical arguments out of people
That's a big assumption of you. If that was really your goal then you'd actually reply and not just "ignore" something because you consider it a "waste of your time". And what is with the assumption that your arguments are logical?
Also logic can be a very relative term. All humans follow what they consider to be logical. Jumping out the third floor of a burning building might be very logical to one person while to another risking the smoke-filled stairs is more logical. I'd suggest you not assume your "logic" trumps others. It might sound like nonsense to many others.
If you don't have the courage to make your case, then don't waste other's time. Have the guts to face a rebuttal. Plenty have been making very logical cases against many of your very illogical (in my opinion) assumptions. But I guess hearing them out is just a "waste of your time" as you say it.
Ah,
so he wanted to separate church and state;
so he could separate morality from politics?
So [they] wouldn't have to do the right thing, but whatever they wanted?
Keeping church n state separate is to keep state out of the church. Not the other way around . That's why settlers left England where state ran through the church.
Oh, thanks man.
That's not why he wanted God out of the pledge. This guy was a communist. There are many regular people who think like that, but communists also want religion out of government. Their reasoning is because they want to use government to destroy religion.
It might sound like a nice idea on paper, but it gets used against people with the wrong religion. This guy claimed he was a baptists, but ran around pushing a very obvious communist agenda under the name of christianity.
There is a lot of literature by communists talking about infiltrating religious institutions like the church just to spread communism. (Read "On A Pale Horse").
Do you agree with him that "Under God" should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance?
The "Under God" has been infuriating to the DS for a long time. I remember how crazy the media has pushed over the years to get it out.
Btw, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution. That is a myth that gets pushed by the media. They spread that lie over and over to try and convince people it's in the Constitution.
https://aclj.org/does-the-separation-of-church-and-state-really-exist
When they said "we don't want religion" in government they really mean they don't want "Christianity" in government.
Morality can and does exist outside of a religious context. One does not need to be religious or follow religious preaching in order to still be moral.
From whence does this secular objective morality spring?
no where. dudes smokin something funny
There are many theories on moral philosophy. quite a few of which are of an atheistic nature ... But why would one to adhere to morality without an eternal benefit/punishment is an intresting question and yet it does exist.
None of those theories have effectively been put into practice, and your last question is telling.
Because it's not right to kill people? Because I don't feel good when I lie? Because I don't want to rape someone? I'm more terrified of people who only adhere to morality because they're promised heaven instead of hell. If people can't find reasons to be moral other than avoiding hell, then they're probably not very moral to begin with, and I'd most definitely want to avoid such people.
ya i kno that.
im talking about this Commie Faggot’s goal.
edit:
it can even be taken further, remove God from politics, and the politicians become our god.
“Do this; don’t do that.”
“Say this; don’t say that.”
“Think this, don’t think that.”
The Party from 1984; The Party decides what’s best for us.
Fishy if I actually take the time to debate you on this will you respond this time? You never respond when people take the time to debate you. You seem to like playing Devil Advocate's whenever you comment.
You always just drop into posts and cry "ThAt's nOt tRuE!" and then never show the guts to debate them.
Will you actually reply and debate here? I'm starting to wonder if you're a bot from how often you do it. It's getting weird.
Many people reply many things to the things I post here while playing devil's advocate at times, or trying to just get logical arguments out of people. I'd spend a lot of time on GAW just sorting through reply notifications and taking the time to continue conversations vs seeing other posts people put up. And yes iM_a ReAl Pers0n. If your feelings get hurt when people don't feel like it's worth debating your every comment, then maybe you're not made for the internet. I don't have unlimited supplies of time and energy.
It's very funny that you regard it that way. That you assume people's feeling are hurt by your opinion. You immediately assume that your opinion is based on logic and that their opinion is not.
Yet I have seen you miss the point (entirely) and base your opinions only your personal speculations. (Which is fine, but have the guts to acknowledge it) When people call you out on your poorly-thought out opinions you take it as "they just can't handle the truth". You immediately dismiss people's arguments.
But other people do? If you don't have the time to waste on an actual discussion then why do you bother wasting other people's time here? This is a discussion board.
That's a big assumption of you. If that was really your goal then you'd actually reply and not just "ignore" something because you consider it a "waste of your time". And what is with the assumption that your arguments are logical?
Also logic can be a very relative term. All humans follow what they consider to be logical. Jumping out the third floor of a burning building might be very logical to one person while to another risking the smoke-filled stairs is more logical. I'd suggest you not assume your "logic" trumps others. It might sound like nonsense to many others.
If you don't have the courage to make your case, then don't waste other's time. Have the guts to face a rebuttal. Plenty have been making very logical cases against many of your very illogical (in my opinion) assumptions. But I guess hearing them out is just a "waste of your time" as you say it.
This is a discussion. Have some courage.