Speration of Church and state

[roark]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Isn't that a hypocrite?

JohnnyB

politician = hypocrite

I don't see any inconsistency.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

If you work for the government and you put up the ten comandments in your cubicle, you're right, it shoudlnt be a problem. However, putting those same comandments at the steps of a courthouse is improper.

The government might prevent people from putting up their own personal religious items in government offices to avoid even looking as if they are sponsoring those items or that religion.

If you dont work in the government or for some government sponsored agency or the like, you are free to put up whatever you choose and dont have to worry about the establishment clause.

Why if the 10 commandment are Laws? Are you say laws should be posted in or at a court of law?

That's the problem, this whole idea has everyones scared that if they let someone express their religion that the **** are going to come down on them. We fought for our freedom from tyranny, who cares what it looks like. If someone can't determine that it belongs to the person and it's not state sponsored. Then they need to look up the laws to see if the state is sponsoring said religion.

The "establishment clause" is binding to the state, not me.

JohnnyB

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

politician = hypocrite

I don't see any inconsistency.

LOL there's something we agree on

JohnnyB

[edvedr]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Do you express who you are to everyone or do you change who you are as the need arises?

JohnnyB

i sure don't change who i am for anyone or anything. but i do choose how to express myself depending on the situation. and religion and politics is something i don't express often at all unless i'm with the right people. you don't have to walk around and express EVERYTHING about yourself ALL the time.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

i sure don't change who i am for anyone or anything. but i do choose how to express myself depending on the situation. and religion and politics is something i don't express often at all unless i'm with the right people. you don't have to walk around and express EVERYTHING about yourself ALL the time.

You missed my point, do you change who you are to fit the need.

Do you try and make advances toward a women that wants nothig to do with you, but you don't know it yet, if you do you're doing the samething Christians do when they talk to people or express themselves. The expression is unwanted by the recieving party, so from now on don't try on pick up any women because that expression of yourself can be offensive to them.

JohnnyB

[edvedr]

Re: Speration of Church and state

You missed my point, do you change who you are to fit the need.

Do you try and make advances toward a women that wants nothig to do with you, but you don't know it yet, if you do you're doing the samething Christians do when they talk to people or express themselves. The expression is unwanted by the recieving party, so from now on don't try on pick up any women because that expression of yourself can be offensive to them.

JohnnyB

i see your point, but i still don't agree. i don't think picking up women is a fair comparison but i'll go with it. me personally i wouldn't ever just walk up to a woman and approach her. like i said there is a time and place for everything. and if i'm not in a bar scene or a more personal place i would never approach a woman to hit on her and ask her for her # or whatever. its not appropiate. just like expressing your religion isn't unless your at church or a more personal place with people you know

[daved150]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Isn't that a hypocrite? How can anyone be separated from their beliefs it's what makes us who we are. Some how if they're religious you're supposed to separate yourself from them. If this is so true then why do all politician claim to be Christians when they're running but when they vote, they vote agianst what their said belief or values should be according to their profession.

Why would you want someone that says they're one thing to be elected, then lives in a manner that doesn't express said beliefs or values once elected?

JohnnyB

you dont understand what i am saying... i dont want them to vote on their beliefs, i want them to vote on what is best for the nation (town, city, state, whatever). you probobly wont understand this either but, in my job i have many function, but 1 is i buy used cars for stock for salesman to sell form. 2 i sell units wholesale to other dealerships but including my own..this is called wholesaling. i get paid on wholesale proffit sepretly. i do buy from myself from the dealership account, to the dealership wholesale account. whats to stop me from wholesaling to myself for a much much more inflated price for more pay. i do whats in the best intrest of the dealer, wether its in my best intrest or not..that is my job. i dont want them to vote with their faith on....and if any politician said that their way was the best becouse god said..i would not vote for him. oh, and i dont think ALL politicians claim to be chritian.

[roark]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Why if the 10 commandment are Laws? Are you say laws should be posted in or at a court of law?

That's the problem, this whole idea has everyones scared that if they let someone express their religion that the **** are going to come down on them. We fought for our freedom from tyranny, who cares what it looks like. If someone can't determine that it belongs to the person and it's not state sponsored. Then they need to look up the laws to see if the state is sponsoring said religion.

The "establishment clause" is binding to the state, not me.

JohnnyB

The ten comandments are not the laws of the united states. Thats why. Our courts do not turn to the bible for their decisions.

And, while the establishment clause is binding to the federal and state governments, human beings run those governments and those people are affected by that clause.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

i see your point, but i still don't agree. i don't think picking up women is a fair comparison but i'll go with it. me personally i wouldn't ever just walk up to a woman and approach her. like i said there is a time and place for everything. and if i'm not in a bar scene or a more personal place i would never approach a woman to hit on her and ask her for her # or whatever. its not appropiate. just like expressing your religion isn't unless your at church or a more personal place with people you know

So you are saying if you seen a nice looking women that wasn't in a bar you wouldn't try an talk to her, if I followed that line of reasoning I wouldn't be married today and I didn't meet her in Church either, but at her place of employment.

But let me get your reasoning on this, it's not right to express religion outside a Church, but it's okay to be a hypocrite and act like you don't go to Church, is that what you're saying?

JohnnyB

[roark]

Re: Speration of Church and state

Politicians have every right to take their religion with them when they enter office and through their careers. If people dont like their infusion of their religion into their politics, they are free to elect someone else.

[edvedr]

Re: Speration of Church and state

So you are saying if you seen a nice looking women that wasn't in a bar you wouldn't try an talk to her, if I followed that line of reasoning I wouldn't be married today and I didn't meet her in Church either, but at her place of employment.

But let me get your reasoning on this, it's not right to express religion outside a Church, but it's okay to be a hypocrite and act like you don't go to Church, is that what you're saying?

JohnnyB

i didn't say only in a bar, if its in a more personal place or personal situation then fine. but i would never approach a woman in public solely for the purpose of tryin to pick her up. and unless it was a extreme situation i wouldn't even ask her out in our first conversation. if i don't have a chance to see her on more than one occasion then hey she is not for me and i'll move on.

and again i didn't say u should only express your religion in church, but it should only be in situations where the religion is the topic, discussion or debate. i don't think you should be expressing yourself for the purpose of letting other people know your religion. and i'm not understanding exactly what your intent is with the hypocrite comment, i don't see how that pertains to our conversation unless you are assuming that about me.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

..i would not vote for him.

There's your answer.

So let take this a bit further, if the politician was gay he/she is not supposed to vote for gay issues because they are but for the good of the country?

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning, you somehow assume that people build their character apart from there beliefs. It's your beliefs that guide you in life and determine who you are. No one can separate their beliefs for what they vote on, because they believe that they were elected because of what they believe and that's how they are going to vote. You see when people that we like are elected we want them to vote their beliefs that's why we voted for them. Now when it comes to people being elected that we disagree with, all of a sudden we want them to vote for what we think is best for the country and not what they believe. Because the reality is that what they believe is what they think is best for the country, so they are following your standard. The problem is it's not what you think is best for the country so you want them to not vote for what they think is best for the country but what you think is best.

It has always been interesting how people make different rules for people they disagree with. Because if they vote how we want them to in our eyes it best for the country, if they don't it's because they have an ideology that they go by that should not influence their vote. We can be funny when it comes to what we think is best, the good part is we are free to vote for out officials and if the one you wanted didn't win there's always the next election.

JohnnyB

JohnnyB

[roark]

Re: Speration of Church and state

There's your answer.

So let take this a bit further, if the politician was gay he/she is not supposed to vote for gay issues because they are but for the good of the country?

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning, you somehow assume that people build their character apart from there beliefs. It's your beliefs that guide you in life and determine who you are. No one can separate their beliefs for what they vote on, because they believe that they were elected because of what they believe and that's how they are going to vote. You see when people that we like are elected we want them to vote their beliefs that's why we voted for them. Now when it comes to people being elected that we disagree with, all of a sudden we want them to vote for what we think is best for the country and not what they believe. Because the reality is that what they believe is what they think is best for the country, so they are following your standard. The problem is it's not what you think is best for the country so you want them to not vote for what they think is best for the country but what you think is best.

It has always been interesting how people make different rules for people they disagree with. Because if they vote how we want them to in our eyes it best for the country, if they don't it's because they have an ideology that they go by that should not influence their vote. We can be funny when it comes to what we think is best, the good part is we are free to vote for out officials and if the one you wanted didn't win there's always the next election.

JohnnyB

JohnnyB

The politicians are representatives; they should represent the desires and needs of their constituency.

[JohnnyB]

Re: Speration of Church and state

The ten comandments are not the laws of the united states. Thats why. Our courts do not turn to the bible for their decisions.

And, while the establishment clause is binding to the federal and state governments, human beings run those governments and those people are affected by that clause.

They don't? So stealing and murder are okay by law in this country. Although they don't turn to the Bible in a court of law, they do have people sware by it. So if the whole Bible can be in the court room, why can't 10 sentences of it be in the court house?

Exactly my point, they as the governing body can't make laws to establish a religion or restrict it's expression, the people in that body can freely express their religion, because they are part if "we the people." They just can't start a state run or back a religion, but they are free to express thier personal religion where every they please.

Remeber the back round of the founding fathers, they came from a country that didn't not allow freedom of expression when it came to religion, the press or about it's monarcy (government).

JohnnyB

[roark]

Re: Speration of Church and state

They don't? So stealing and murder are okay by law in this country. Although they don't turn to the Bible in a court of law, they do have people sware by it. So if the whole Bible can be in the court room, why can't 10 sentences of it be in the court house?

JohnnyB

Swearing on the bible is a relic, you dont have to swear on it if you dont want to.

And stealing and murder are illegal because the states and the federal government chose to make it so. Not because of the bible.

I really doubt that you believe that, if not for the bible, there would be no laws prohibiting stealing and murder.

While I appreciate your position, it is full of logic gaps.