Church and State separation. - Page 2

Duppin · 02-01-2007, 11:28 PM

You mean the illegal immigrant invasion from the south that is almost entirely a product of a) the ridiculous immigration/visa process in this country and b) American business owners who like the cheap labor they don't have to pay workmen's comp for?

VariaVespasa · 02-01-2007, 11:56 PM

Contumelious = scornful, according to my dictionary.

AngryGerbil · 02-02-2007, 02:51 AM

You sometimes have to stop, and really gotta stand back in complete and utter awe and just jaw-droppingly marvel at the media as it convinces our people to think that Mexican immigration (illegal or otherwise) is the single biggest problem in our country and then have the stones to, in the same breath, call all the media "liberally bias".

Seriously. History books in the future are gonna talk about this. It's kind of neat, in a nauseating way, to be a part of it as it happens.

I'd buy stock in Orville Redinbocker if I were ya'll.

chaos · 02-02-2007, 06:31 AM

Some day I will have to explain to my grandchildren all of this, from Iraq to the media to the Christian Coalition. That will be an embarassing day for sure. History sucks, we should rewrite it and pretend the last 30 years or so never happened.

Dabamf · 02-02-2007, 07:25 AM

DEY TOOK ARR JERBS!

Furism · 02-02-2007, 07:59 AM

Always seemed wrong to me that the President of the USA has to swear on the Bible when he takes office. I guess Church and State separation means the Church can't directly rule, not that you can't use Church rules to govern, or something. Seems wrong to me all the same.

Khorum · 02-02-2007, 08:38 AM

James pegged it right. Separation of Church and state in the American context wasn't really installed to prevent any church to rule, it was installed to prevent the Catholic church to rule.

The US was founded by puritan protestants and dutch calvinists who crawled across the Atlantic after the 30 years war. Where Spain, France and the Vatican spent the better part of a century hunting down and murdering every flavor of protestant they could find. Soon as they landed in America, the puritans established orthodox theocracies that make Iran look like hippy slackers. Complete with book-burnings, public stonings and weekly witch-burnings. They even had ultra-hardcore puritans who were dissatisfied with the 'leniency' of the original colonies and they broke off to form their own Shaker, Quaker, Amish and Mormon communities elsewhere.

They didn't have much in common except one thing: an abiding hatred for PAPISTS (catholics) and a fondness for civic religious expression. This puritan religious radicalization exists TO THIS DAY. From the Jonestown tragedy to David Koresh it doesn't take much scrutiny to see that Americans never really stopped being religious radicals. Ever.

Oddly enough, radical religion has swung every which way in American policy--you won't find Chomsky complaining about the Religious Right's 40-year campaign to abolish slavery for example, or its role in women's suffrage--but it's done some seriously wacko shit like Prohibition and now the ban on stem-cell science. Of course you won't hear modern secularists elaborating on how religious activists ran the underground railroad. What's important is that these narrow-minded Jesus neanderthals are hating on gay people's rights to draw on insurance services, public aid and tax resources that are reserved for couples who sign a contractual obligation to produce future American citizens.

chaos · 02-02-2007, 08:47 AM

Everything I've read about early America says basically that our founding fathers were not religious, at all, in fact that whole Age of Enlightenment thing was going on. The only truly religious people were basically the poor people. And that the intent behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independance was anything but religious. Papists, protestant, whatever, it was not only unfashionable at the time but insulting, as they had the idea that religion was for simpletons. I'd always pretty much accepted that, I haven't read anything to suggest that super-mega-Christians were the ones who wrote our laws in the late 1700s, maybe I just need to read more?

Khorum · 02-02-2007, 09:35 AM

The framers weren't ambigious about their faith, but they were clearly for religious tolerance. "God" is splattered all over all the instrumentation of the republic; the preamble, the articles of independence even minutes of the first continental congress. This isn't to say they were fervent radical christians--far from it--it just serves to show how a century and a half of puritan colonial culture colored the philosophy of even renowned secularists like Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin.

I'm not sure what you've read about the framers' faith (or lack of it), but regardless of their beliefs, the constitution they ratified was a stunning rejection of Theocracy. This wasn't because they were anti-religion though, it was an expression of the religious toleration that' s been inculcated into every protestant and dutch calvinist community that crossed over to escape the Catholic pogroms.

Attributing early American christian activism exclusively to the poor, the uneducated or the opportunistic is pretty inaccurate for similar reasons. A large proportion early social progressive activism--the abolitionists, women's suffrage--had large religious components. Again it wasn't for some abstract theological motive, it was simply the cultural context.

Slide · 02-02-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Himeo

The illegal immigrant invasion from the south. Not that anyone cares, really.

Kind of rich coming from a nation built entirely on immigrants.

Warrik · 02-02-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slide

Kind of rich coming from a nation built entirely on immigrants.

The immigrants that built that country are no where near the same as what is happening at our borders. My great grandparents werent here illegally, working under the table and sending the money they earn back to Italy while avoiding to pay taxes and whining about not being able to legally aquire a drivers license or recieve health benefits.

Im all for legal immigrants from Mexico and feel they deserve every right I have, but if your here illegally, and have no intention to try and aquire a green card, you deserve no rights and need to be deported. Period. I also feel the employers who exploit illegals should be heavily penalized.

Duppin · 02-02-2007, 05:59 PM

Statistically, it's a very good bet that your great grandparents would have been turned back at the border under current US immigration policy.

But they were European immigrants, not them damn beaners, so it's okay, right?

AngryGerbil · 02-03-2007, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duppin

Statistically, it's a very good bet that your great grandparents would have been turned back at the border under current US immigration policy.

But they were European immigrants, not them damn beaners, so it's okay, right?

BUT IT WAS ILLEGAL LOL!

Haven't you been keeping up Duppin? We care more about enforcing the law than questioning it.

Sarvius · 02-03-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendarios

M.G.L. - Chapter 272, Section 36

Jesus, fuck God. And immigrants! I never liked my granpa anyways, that drunken Irish asshole.

02-02-2007, 02:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
AngryGerbil zero signal Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,568	You sometimes have to stop, and really gotta stand back in complete and utter awe and just jaw-droppingly marvel at the media as it convinces our people to think that Mexican immigration (illegal or otherwise) is the single biggest problem in our country and then have the stones to, in the same breath, call all the media "liberally bias". Seriously. History books in the future are gonna talk about this. It's kind of neat, in a nauseating way, to be a part of it as it happens. I'd buy stock in Orville Redinbocker if I were ya'll. __________________ Doesn't speak the language. Holds no currency. Last edited by AngryGerbil : 02-02-2007 at 02:54 AM.

02-02-2007, 07:59 AM	#21 (permalink)
Furism Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,135 +8 Internets	Always seemed wrong to me that the President of the USA has to swear on the Bible when he takes office. I guess Church and State separation means the Church can't directly rule, not that you can't use Church rules to govern, or something. Seems wrong to me all the same. __________________ - Furism

02-02-2007, 08:38 AM	#22 (permalink)
Khorum Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,594 -35 Internets	James pegged it right. Separation of Church and state in the American context wasn't really installed to prevent any church to rule, it was installed to prevent the Catholic church to rule. The US was founded by puritan protestants and dutch calvinists who crawled across the Atlantic after the 30 years war. Where Spain, France and the Vatican spent the better part of a century hunting down and murdering every flavor of protestant they could find. Soon as they landed in America, the puritans established orthodox theocracies that make Iran look like hippy slackers. Complete with book-burnings, public stonings and weekly witch-burnings. They even had ultra-hardcore puritans who were dissatisfied with the 'leniency' of the original colonies and they broke off to form their own Shaker, Quaker, Amish and Mormon communities elsewhere. They didn't have much in common except one thing: an abiding hatred for PAPISTS (catholics) and a fondness for civic religious expression. This puritan religious radicalization exists TO THIS DAY. From the Jonestown tragedy to David Koresh it doesn't take much scrutiny to see that Americans never really stopped being religious radicals. Ever. Oddly enough, radical religion has swung every which way in American policy--you won't find Chomsky complaining about the Religious Right's 40-year campaign to abolish slavery for example, or its role in women's suffrage--but it's done some seriously wacko shit like Prohibition and now the ban on stem-cell science. Of course you won't hear modern secularists elaborating on how religious activists ran the underground railroad. What's important is that these narrow-minded Jesus neanderthals are hating on gay people's rights to draw on insurance services, public aid and tax resources that are reserved for couples who sign a contractual obligation to produce future American citizens. Last edited by Khorum : 02-02-2007 at 05:00 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

02-01-2007, 11:28 PM	#16 (permalink)
Duppin Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,490 -17 Internets	You mean the illegal immigrant invasion from the south that is almost entirely a product of a) the ridiculous immigration/visa process in this country and b) American business owners who like the cheap labor they don't have to pay workmen's comp for?

02-01-2007, 11:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
VariaVespasa Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 273 -4 Internets	Contumelious = scornful, according to my dictionary.

02-02-2007, 06:31 AM	#19 (permalink)
chaos Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,160 +20 Internets	Some day I will have to explain to my grandchildren all of this, from Iraq to the media to the Christian Coalition. That will be an embarassing day for sure. History sucks, we should rewrite it and pretend the last 30 years or so never happened.

02-02-2007, 07:25 AM	#20 (permalink)
Dabamf Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,891 +2 Internets	DEY TOOK ARR JERBS!

02-02-2007, 08:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
chaos Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,160 +20 Internets	Everything I've read about early America says basically that our founding fathers were not religious, at all, in fact that whole Age of Enlightenment thing was going on. The only truly religious people were basically the poor people. And that the intent behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independance was anything but religious. Papists, protestant, whatever, it was not only unfashionable at the time but insulting, as they had the idea that religion was for simpletons. I'd always pretty much accepted that, I haven't read anything to suggest that super-mega-Christians were the ones who wrote our laws in the late 1700s, maybe I just need to read more?

02-02-2007, 09:35 AM	#24 (permalink)
Khorum Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,594 -35 Internets	The framers weren't ambigious about their faith, but they were clearly for religious tolerance. "God" is splattered all over all the instrumentation of the republic; the preamble, the articles of independence even minutes of the first continental congress. This isn't to say they were fervent radical christians--far from it--it just serves to show how a century and a half of puritan colonial culture colored the philosophy of even renowned secularists like Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin. I'm not sure what you've read about the framers' faith (or lack of it), but regardless of their beliefs, the constitution they ratified was a stunning rejection of Theocracy. This wasn't because they were anti-religion though, it was an expression of the religious toleration that' s been inculcated into every protestant and dutch calvinist community that crossed over to escape the Catholic pogroms. Attributing early American christian activism exclusively to the poor, the uneducated or the opportunistic is pretty inaccurate for similar reasons. A large proportion early social progressive activism--the abolitionists, women's suffrage--had large religious components. Again it wasn't for some abstract theological motive, it was simply the cultural context.

02-02-2007, 05:59 PM	#27 (permalink)
Duppin Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,490 -17 Internets	Statistically, it's a very good bet that your great grandparents would have been turned back at the border under current US immigration policy. But they were European immigrants, not them damn beaners, so it's okay, right?