Harris has the Freepers arguing with one another over Church & State

It's refreshing to see at least one or two Freepers who believe in the Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, most of them still seem to think "Separation of C & S, is made up.

So few people, Republican or Democrat, really have a good grasp of what the Founding Father's meant. What I try to tell my Freeper friends is that the Founders wanted to separate Church and State to protect the Church from the State. I ask them: "Do you really need the Government to tell you how to be religious????????" By observing History the founders understood that when Religion and State are one, then people start killing one another and people start burning witches at the stake and things like science and reason are ignored. As Madison put it, by keeping the church and state separate ones religious beliefs stay "pure" because people turn to religion because they want to, NOT because the State told them they should be religious. Separation of Church and State has been good for Religion because it's absolutely everywhere!!!! Thousands of TV and radio stations carry Religious messages constantly and we are one of the most religious country's on the planet. What more do they want???

It's ironic that Republicans, who hate Government, think the Government would do a good job with Religion???? Do they really want Politicians telling them how to be religious???????? OMFG! Get a grip Freepers!

See ignorance here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690990/posts

That is the truth. A true democratic nation that allows you the freedom to choose what you believe will make you stronger in your faith and pursuant to truths... By putting up a psuedo Christian state, you are creating a govt that is not any better than the one's we are "fighting" against.

The debate wasn't even about "If their was a wall" but if the wall should be lowered some. The Rev. Berry Lynn and the others on our side were absolutely awesome in the debate. They really helped me understand the issue and gave me great talking points for debate. I have won so many debates with freepers with what I learned from them. It's really funny to turn the debate around on a freeper and ask them "why they want to ruin religion by letting the state screw it up". They never have a comeback to that one.


That debate should be required viewing in all High Schools.

I have never been happier with a representative. :loveya:

--IMM

" I do however believe God had a hand in ensuring Bush won the Florida recount Supreme Court decision because he would have wanted a strong leader in there to handle 9-11."


If that's true, then I don't really like this dude "God".

I can see how some one reading Romans 13:1 would think/say that God chooses our leaders, but can you really say God had a hand in choosing Clinton but not Bush? And what does that say about free will anyway? I thought most people stopped subscribing to this belief (divine right of kings?) during the enlightenment. Our Declaration of Independence may not be law, but it is a set of guiding principles for our nation and it states that governments drive their consent from the governed, not God.

what an ugly, eye-straining board they've made for themselves.

by the fact that US laws allow "behaviours" that are not permitted in other secular countries, so in fact there is no efficient separation.

- religious behaviours and interference about programs are permitted in public schools and other civil offices
- references to "God" are made in statements coming from officials, not to talk about pledges, mottos, oaths etc..
- clerics are allowed to give a LEGAL aspect to marriage, when it should be only spiritual.
- and most of all tax exemptions put churches into a very powerful financial position compared to secular organisations that could fill the same niche within welfare etc...

the results are appalling

because the either were not taught this school and refuse to believe do we have to go over the facts of why this country was created?

I'm just saying.

Even before Robinson and Falwell. You can trace the provenance of a lot of this to Tony Alamo and to some of the early Christian Identity "ministers".

The really hardcore theocrats- the ones who talk about the "war on Christianity"- they dismiss the point about keeping the government's paws out of religion.

If they truly believed they were being suppressed by the state, they would *not* want the government getting it's hands into religion. But they don't believe it- not really. Deep down, they want to mix the two because they want to force their beliefs on everyone else.

But I agree with you on the framing in general. For 95% of them, it's an excellent argument and really works.

. . . they mean the government's failure to make war on Muslims and atheists impose Chritianity on them.

And when they say the seperation of church and state is a secular myth, I really don't understand. The Constitution contains the word "religion or religious twice, and in both cases it has the effect of seperating church and state. These people need remdial reading comprehension.

there is a widening rift between real conservatives(who i respect) and bushbot maniac freepers (who are a waste of oxygen). It used to be only with certain topics would you see any kind of discource but now it happens with half the issues. I hope this is a sign of a more moderate political climate in the coming future which is advantageous to everyone, except the screaming talking heads.

I agree with your assessment 100%.

or at least, respect:

Harris could have been a little more circumspect and nuanced in her expression of this idea instead of shooting from the hip. There's an intelligent way to have handled this like saying "I don't believe the Founders ever meant the Establishment Clause to be a muzzle on religious free speech" or by even pointing out it was merely a construct to prevent the establishment of a state religion. But Harris is showing herself more and more incapable of being an effective politician who thinks before she speaks

Some of his other posts sound very pragmatic. And we at DU often have debates about being passionate vs. pragmatic. The passionate ones see the more toned down approach as selling out our ideals. The pragmatic ones say we have to win before we can get change.

Of course, I also like the Freeper calling Harris an idiot! ;)

Proudly serving Freedom fries and Freedom toast. No broccoli allowed. Ketchup is always the vegetable of the day.