They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

He didn't have to be that way, as in, there is no logically necessary reason.

How do you know that? How do you know that God "could" have been different? And again, what in creation would be non-arbitrary given your definition?

Oh yes it matters which god. Without that you have no point. Your views are on the block here, not mine. So don't try to turn this around. Why is something good because it reflects god's character?

Answer.

No you are avoiding the question again, and your views are just as much on the block. You did this in our last debate - you had nothing to offer. So again, good is what conforms to God's moral character, will and commands. You don't care for that, fine - offer something better.

Oh sorry. I meant to say permanence, not impermanence.

No problem.

But that's exactly what you cannot offer - something better. On your view you take the relative morality of an evolved species of social primates from a particular culture from the Iron age, and then assert that it's universal, permanent, and eternal. That's not a view any intelligent person is going to take seriously because you have no intellectual grounding for your views, they are totally incoherent or circular.

No, it means much more. That there is a universal and certain moral goal to move towards. That there is a moral purpose for man, that we can actually move from worse to better because there is a better to be conformed to. And if my view is circular so is yours - so why take your views seriously? Stop being hypocritical.

[The Thinker]

and religion is mentioned in the first amendment. derp.

That's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Those are the amendments to the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

[The Thinker]

If liberals had their way, the first two amendments would be repealed.

Are you crazy? Liberals are the biggest defenders of the first amendment.

[The Thinker]

How do you know that? How do you know that God "could" have been different? And again, what in creation would be non-arbitrary given your definition?

Because there is no logically necessary reason why god has to be the way he is.

No you are avoiding the question again, and your views are just as much on the block. You did this in our last debate - you had nothing to offer.

My views are not on the block. YOU are claiming you have something better than I do. You need to actually show that.

So again, good is what conforms to God's moral character, will and commands. You don't care for that, fine - offer something better.

Why is good what "conforms to God's moral character, will and commands"? I see no reason to believe this, I just see you asserting it. Explain this logically.

No, it means much more. That there is a universal and certain moral goal to move towards. That there is a moral purpose for man, that we can actually move from worse to better because there is a better to be conformed to. And if my view is circular so is yours - so why take your views seriously? Stop being hypocritical.

How can you move towards a goal if you just spend days arguing your morality is eternal, immutable, and permanence? You cannot change if you are unchanging. You do understand that right?

[Sparko]

Almost all the early states had state churches in the early decades of the country. That doesn't mean that's constitutional.

um doncha think the Founders would have noticed if it was unconstitutional since they kinda wrote the constitution? Why wasn't Jefferson protesting these state run churches and outlawing them as unconstitutional? What does it say that they had no problems with such things until the 20th century, long after the people who actually wrote the constitution were gone?

It means that freaking liberals are misreading the intent of the founders and the constitution. Just like you are doing in this thread.

[Sparko]

That's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Those are the amendments to the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

Um I don't think you know what an "amendment" is.

Pretty much like you don't know a heck of a lot about any of this. Par for the course.

But hey, let's try it your way. If the amendments are not part of the constitution then nowhere in the constitution is there anything that makes having a state run church illegal, or any separation of church and state. How's that?

[seer]

Almost all the early states had state churches in the early decades of the country. That doesn't mean that's constitutional. The letter addresses a specific matter and is not intended to cover every possible issue. The wall of separation is clear, and the meaning of the letter's principle is what matters: if a state has a state church, that is the government establishing a religion, and that will violate the wall of separation. I'm not against biblical principles informing a law, just so long as it has a secular justification for it, as the Lemon test affirms.

Like I said, liberal courts two hundred years later. It is obvious by the laws they past the Founders, generally, don't agree with your limited view of the First Amendment.

No, that is not an excuse. No one is forcing your church to change its policies when it's doing church services, and if someone is, I'd be against it. But when you use the church like a regular business, then you have to abide by the rules regular businesses abide by. It's very simple. If you don't want to do that, then don't use your church like a regular business.

Really? Our services are open to the public (the standard you mentioned), should we therefore have to provide transgender bathrooms, or let a trans male use the ladies room or shower? And BTW Thinker there is no Constitutional grounds for telling any business or church who they have to serve, hire or what accommodations they need to make. If you think otherwise please show me.

That makes no sense. His "opinion" on what the amendment meant is the reason and explanation on why he put it in there in the first place. (Madison wrote the 1st amendment, Jefferson inspired the establishment clause in it among other things.) For Washington, he's just expressing his opinion on religion. He didn't put that into law like Jefferson did. So there is no comparison. And once again, religion can only influence law when there is a secular justification for it. If there isn't, the law is unconstitutional because it is explicitly religious.

Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was ratified!!! Sheesh, you didn't even know that?

It was Madison who penned the First Amendment, and here is his first draft.

nor shall any national religion be established..."

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...n-s-intentions

So it seems clear that the real fear was the establishment of a national church, not the influence of religion, nor did they have a problem supporting religion with tax monies.

[seer]

Because there is no logically necessary reason why god has to be the way he is.

According to whom? You? And again, what in creation would be non-arbitrary given your definition?

My views are not on the block. YOU are claiming you have something better than I do. You need to actually show that.

No homer, you brought this whole thing up again. If you have something better, non-circular present it. Or stop being a hypocrite.

How can you move towards a goal if you just spend days arguing your morality is eternal, immutable, and permanence? You cannot change if you are unchanging. You do understand that right?

What? God's moral character is what is unchanging, not ours. His moral goal for us, that teleology, the purpose for which were were created, is what we are moving towards - or can move towards.

[Mountain Man]

Are you crazy? Liberals are the biggest defenders of the first amendment.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

[seer]

Are you crazy? Liberals are the biggest defenders of the first amendment.

You mean like with College speech codes, safe places, micro-aggression, political correctness?

[Cow Poke]

Are you crazy? Liberals are the biggest defenders of the first amendment.

Well, except for the fact that liberals either can't understand, or are totally dishonest about, the "prohibition clause" of the first amendment.

I'll go ahead and bold it since you guys always manage to overlook it.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Sparko]

Well, except for the fact that liberals either can't understand, or are totally dishonest about, the "prohibition clause" of the first amendment.

I'll go ahead and bold it since you guys always manage to overlook it.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

they seem to miss pretty much all of it, cp. freedom of speech, right to assemble (except when THEY want to assemble). Hey maybe that is what it is, they think the 1st amendment only applies to liberals and democrats.

[Mountain Man]

As the saying goes, offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

[The Thinker]

um doncha think the Founders would have noticed if it was unconstitutional since they kinda wrote the constitution? Why wasn't Jefferson protesting these state run churches and outlawing them as unconstitutional? What does it say that they had no problems with such things until the 20th century, long after the people who actually wrote the constitution were gone?

It means that freaking liberals are misreading the intent of the founders and the constitution. Just like you are doing in this thread.

Um doncha think you should capitalize the first letter of a sentence?

I don't think the founding fathers considered every practical implication of the Bill of Rights, just like they didn't realize "all men are equal" would eventually apply to black people and women too. But the principle of "all men are equal" entails that. If states can have state churches, then in effect you will have the government supporting one religion over an other, which defeats the whole purpose of the 1st amendment. If the founding fathers wanted to make the US a Christian country officially, they could have easily made that explicit on numerous occasions.

[The Thinker]

Um I don't think you know what an "amendment" is.

Pretty much like you don't know a heck of a lot about any of this. Par for the course.

But hey, let's try it your way. If the amendments are not part of the constitution then nowhere in the constitution is there anything that makes having a state run church illegal, or any separation of church and state. How's that?

The Bill of Rights is an addition to the Constitution, and the only place "religion" is mentioned in the BoR is to limit it. This is the Constitution.