Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…3536384041…101

Comments

  • #1112
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    you're the only one referring to Christianity with regard to the separation of church and state. This clearly shows you have little to no understanding on the concept.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1113
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    you're the only one referring to Christianity with regard to the separation of church and state. This clearly shows you have little to no understanding on the concept.
    The use of the word 'Church' in the concept does imply Christianity ... and only Christianity.
    The concept is either erroneously stated ... in which case a better descriptor (of what is to be separated from the state) should be used ...
    ... or it isn't erroneous ... and the concept does mean 'what it says on the tin' ... the isolation of all Christian Churches for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state ... in which case, it would be in contravention of equality legislation and the First Amendment.


  • #1114
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    J C wrote: »
    Religion is a much wider concept than the Christian Church ... it certainly encompasses all of the other religions of the world and possibly the 'religion' of irreligion as well.

    ... and the text says that the state shall not favour (or dis-favour) any religion ... the doctrine of separation of Church and State implies the isolation of the Christian Church for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state.

    The 'Separation of Church and State' may be relevant where there is a State Established Church ... but this doesn't apply to America
    The phrasing 'separation of church and state' is more of a colloquialism. Since Christianity in various forms would be the most popular religion in the US, this is the phrasing that's used. It's not specifically targetting Christianity,it's merely saying that no religion should receive any form of a special status from the state. Nobody on this forum is calling for just one branch of religion to fall under separation of Church and state. You're being pedantic and go to this weird narrative where the world is ganging up on Christianity.


  • #1115
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    The phrasing 'separation of church and state' is more of a colloquialism. Since Christianity in various forms would be the most popular religion in the US, this is the phrasing that's used. It's not specifically targetting Christianity,it's merely saying that no religion should receive any form of a special status from the state. Nobody on this forum is calling for just one branch of religion to fall under separation of Church and state. You're being pedantic and go to this weird narrative where the world is ganging up on Christianity.
    I'm not being in the least pedantic ... as this is a very serious concept that is being asked to be applied by the state ... and the precise use of language is essential in such circumstances.

    People promoting this concept should mean what they say ... and say exactly what they mean.

    This is not some kind of 'colloquialism' ... its being presented as a legal principle before which the American Constitution and the laws of the United States (and other countries) should bend in order to implement it.

    I'm taking it at face value as the naked advocacy of discrimination by the state against Christian Churches.
    This is the only possible meaning in a place like America, where there isn't an Established Church in postion (that could be dis-established or 'separated' from the State).


  • #1116
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    That particular piece of arcane law doesn't justify calling Ardmacha a liar ... and Arlington Cemetary also allows religious symbols on gravestones ... and it's definitely on American soil.

    I didn't call anyone a liar, nor make any comment on Arlington cemetery. I merely pointed out that how Americans behave on their own soil when governed by their own laws is different from how they behave abroad. The cemetery in Luxembourg is not typical of an American military cemetery.


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    It's not discrimination against Christians Churches.
    the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, : wikipedia wrote:
    The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach


  • #1118
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not being in the least pedantic ... as this is a very serious concept that is being asked to be applied by the state ... and the precise use of language is essential in such circumstances.

    People promoting this concept should mean what they say ... and say exactly what they mean.

    This is not some kind of 'colloquialism' ... its being presented as a legal principle before which the American Constitution and the laws of the United States (and other countries) should bend and vindicate.

    I'm taking it at face value as the naked advocacy of discrimination by the state against Christian Churches.
    This is the only possible meaning in a place like America, where there isn't an Established Church in postion (that could be dis-established or 'separated' from the State).

    Breaking the first amendment is viewed in terms of what is written in the US constitution,it is not in terms of colloquialisms.


  • #1119
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    I didn't call anyone a liar, nor make any comment on Arlington cemetery. I merely pointed out that how Americans behave on their own soil when governed by their own laws is different from how they behave abroad. The cemetery in Luxembourg is not typical of an American military cemetery.
    I didn't say you called anybody a liar ... that 'distinction' lies with Brian ... I was merely pointing out that your posting didn't justify Brian calling Ardmacha a liar.

    ... and the cemetery in Luxembourg is typical of all US Cemeteries overseas ... where crosses are the predominant grave marker.


  • #1120
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    It's not discrimination against Christians Churches.

    Originally Posted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, : wikipedia
    The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

    The First Amendment is very precise on what isn't allowed (the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

    There is no mention of a church there ... and that is the way it should be if the intention is to not discriminate between different religions and none.

    The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively referring to the separation/disavantaging of Christianity by the state ... or possibly the dis-establisment of an Established Church, in a state where one exists.

    Both concepts are alien to American Constitutional Law.


  • #1121
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively referring to the separation/disavantaging of Christianity by the state ... or possibly the dis-establisment of an Established Church, in a state where one exists.

    I hate to be the one who tell you this but the world isnt out to get Christianity and its not the main target. Separation of church and state is about all religions, we arent planning on replacing Christianity with Islam and Buddhism and rounding all the Christians into camps. Its for the purpose that laws arent created based on religion and forced on others. Christianity is not a special snowflake, its a religion like any other and people are treating it like any other.


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I hate to be the one who tell you this but the world isnt out to get Christianity and its not the main target. Separation of church and state is about all religions, we arent planning on replacing Christianity with Islam and Buddhism and rounding all the Christians into camps. Its for the purpose that laws arent created based on religion and forced on others. Christianity is not a special snowflake, its a religion like any other and people are treating it like any other.
    If that is the case then why do you (continue to) use the word 'church' in the phrase ... why don't you talk about the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    The phrase is either wrong ... in which case, it should be corrected to mean what you actually mean ... or it is correct, in which case it clearly falls foul of the First Amendment and equality principles.


  • #1123
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    That's why they meant by colloquialism. It's just a turn of phrase. 'Church' refers to individual denominations of religion.


  • #1124
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    If that is the case then why do you (continue to) use the word 'church' in the phrase ... why don't you talk about the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    Its a phrase that is a shorter method of saying that. By church they mean religious organisation.


  • #1125
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Its a phrase that is a shorter method of saying that. By church they mean religious organisation.
    It is a very serious concept being promoted as a method by which laws and states can be judged ... so which is it exactly?

    ... 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • #1126
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    That's why they meant by colloquialism. It's just a turn of phrase. 'Church' refers to individual denominations of religion.
    ... and what about groups of people who hold irreligious beliefs, like Atheism ... or indeed anti-religious beliefs?


  • #1127
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    It is a very serious concept being promoted as a method by which laws and states can be judged ... so which is it exactly?

    ... 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    They are the same. Its all about context ;)
    J C wrote: »
    ... and what about groups of people who hold ireligious beliefs, like Atheism?

    Irreligious beliefs arent an issue, the government just doesnt say weather or not there is a God and its avoided.


  • #1128
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    They are the same. Its all about context ;)
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • #1129
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.

    The original poster of the picture may have better things to do than trying to find where this thread has gone.

    In a thread discussing the use of US government property, I posted a picture and asked if it was US government owned property. I did not state where it was, nor attempt to conceal its location. I believe many on this forum to be Godless, but I do not believe you to be brainless, I imagine you can look at a url as well as anyone else. A lie would have arisen if I had made false url or false legend stating that the cemetery was in the US.

    You could, and did, make the point that being outside the US made this special case and so not proving a general point. This is fair point in debate, but accusing me of a lie is not.

    The only untruth here is your statement that I posted a lie, and I ask to to withdraw this falsehood.


  • #1130
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Irreligious beliefs arent an issue, the government just doesnt say weather or not there is a God and its avoided.
    Irreligious beliefs are, of course, an issue ... the American prohibition on the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... logically also applies to irreligion and Atheistic Humanism ... which is a religious belief, like all the others.

    ... but of course, if I'm an Atheist, it would be very 'convenient' if I could excuse myself and my fellow Atheists from this particular aspect of the First Amendment ... and I could hide behind the dogma of the 'separation of the Christian Church from the State' ... as I got ever-closer to the State myself and had my beliefs increasingly enshrined in law.


  • #1131
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    Separation of church and state is the phrase used by people, the constitutions tend to word it something more like "not to endow any religion". When people say separation of church and state they are talking about not endowing any religion.
    J C wrote: »
    Irreligious beliefs are, of course, an issue ... the American prohibition on the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... logically also applies to irreligion and Atheistic Humanism ... which is a religious belief, like all the others.

    ... but of course, if I'm an Atheist, it would be very 'convenient' if I could excuse myrself and my fellow Atheists from this particular aspect of the First Amendment ... and I could hide behind the dogma of the 'separation of the Christian Church from the State' ... as I got ever-closer to the State myself and had my beliefs increasingly enshrined in law.

    What are these beliefs?


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    So you are choosing to be pedantic again when you know quite well what is meant by "church & state".


  • #1133
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So you are choosing to be pedantic again when you know quite well what is meant by "church & state".
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • #1134
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    What are these beliefs?
    The separation of Church and State, the belief that there is no God and therefore materialistic explantions are the only ones to be accepted and provided with state support, the belief that public expression of religious faith shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school. the belief that the state shouldn't financially support any school with a particular religious ethos, the belief that full respect shouldn't be accorded to religious beliefs in hospitals, the military and prisons including the provision of a chaplancy service ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    I'm sure that you guys can think of a few more.

    ... and if I'm wrong about any of these ... please feel free to correct me.


  • #1135
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    It's BOTH!!!!

    Why is it so hard for you to accept this?


  • #1136
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1137
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    The separtion of Church and State,

    Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    J C wrote: »
    the belief that there is no God,

    That is one, how is it being enshrined in law?
    J C wrote: »
    the belief that religious faith and its public expression shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    Back to: Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.


  • #1138
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The separtion of Church and State,

    shruikan2553
    Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    ... only if they were 'turkeys voting for Christmas'.

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    the belief that there is no God

    shruikan2553
    That is one, how is it being enshrined in law?
    All kind of ways ranging from pressing for the 'separation' / discrimination against Christianity by the state ... to the legal proscription of religious expression in public and in schools.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    the belief that religious faith and its public expression shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    shruikan2553
    Back to: Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    Turkeys ... and Christmas comes to mind.


  • #1139
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    The free lease in perpetuity grants beneficial ownership of the lands

    Just like with everything else you say you're wrong on this. The only bit of land in Luxemburg that is US territory (by international law, convention, and treaty) is situated on 22 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, L-2535 Luxembourg, because the only part of one country that another country can own legally or de facto istheir embassy to that other country.

    JC the more I hear of your ignorant nonsense, the more I come to accept that there are prokaryotes with bigger brain capacities than what you displace.


  • #1140
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    bumper234
    It's BOTH!!!!.
    It cannot be both ... as one is a subset of the other ... unless you are saying that 2 is the actual position.
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.
    wrote:
    SW
    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.
    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The original poster of the picture may have better things to do than trying to find where this thread has gone.

    So, again instead of actually owning up to your own mistake and retracting it, like any honest and decent person would do, you deflect from the issue at hand, that a) you made a false statement, and b) I corrected you on it. What you've done for the second time, is lied about what you said in the first post, and indirectly admitted that you deliberatly lied in your first post.
    The only untruth here is your statement that I posted a lie, and I ask to to withdraw this falsehood.

    Until you apologise for your misleading statement regarding your original post, and retract it, stating that a) you were wrong and b) the First Amendment to the US constitution does prohibit the use of religious iconography on state property (i.e. the opposite of what you are arguing up until now), I will not retract my accusation, which is amply evidenced both by your original post, and by your subsequent deflections and cover ups.


Advertisement