Attention Bettina...

[Fusion pimp]

For the sake of not hi-jacking the other thread, I'll start another.

you said:

Separation of church and state will benefit both science and faith, but it will perish if it trys to compete.

I'm not picking on you, but I would like you to clarify what you believe Sep/church/state was intended to mean, not what you're taught it now means.

Thanks,

B-

[CUDA]

not to hop in, the problem I have with the quote seperation of church and state, is 2 fold. one it says that "Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion" it was meant to refer to the church of England, as in a government founded religion. and 2nd that the ppl that scream for the seperation convienently forget about the 2nd part, "or prohibiting the free exercise there of"

the whole article says that the goverment cannot run a religion. or stop anyone from practicing a religion. basically the government it to stay out of issues concerning religion.

hope I didnt step on your intent.

[Fusion pimp]

Well, yeah.. you did kill my intent.
I really wanted to hear Bet give me her opinion.

But, you're right, Cuda.. that's exactly what it says/means.

[Duper]

The term "separation of church and state" comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote the Dansbury Baptist church which at the time baptists were still being persecuted and was afraid that the new Congress was going to cause trouble for them. Oh, here it is:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

*A cite for this letter could read:
Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

Jefferson's Reply

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

* A cite for this letter could read:
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281

And there you are. It's not law. It was a terrable interpertation of something that was never ment to BE law.

[Hostile]

Man talk about killing a topic before it gets started. Situational awareness was LOW.....

[Gooberman]

I don't believe Bet is that far behind me in age. And I was taught in school exactly what Cuda wrote.

[kurupt]

I don't believe Bet is that far behind me in age. And I was taught in school exactly what Cuda wrote.

same

[Bet51987]

First, I hesitated to reply to this because my name was again in the subject line and I'm very uncomfortable with that. I know it wasn't done out of spite, but hopefully nobody will do that anymore because thats what PM's are for. Fusion, you took my statement literally and that wasn't my intent. I will repeat it here and forgive me if I go off on tangents, because I don't have time to clean it up.

Separation of church and state will benefit both science and faith, but it will perish if it trys to compete.

I wanted to indicate that church and state need to remain separate for many reasons. The most important is that science can be tested and proven while religion can't. All religion can do is throw sticks at evolution. Religion looks foolish when they challenge science and yet have not one shred of evidence to back up anything in their book. All they have is a book full of words and no hard evidence.

When I go to a science museum, I see things of wonder. I can stay there all day because I can see things, feel them in my hand, and know what I see is real....Look at this link. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... altu.shtml
It is a skull from a 160,000 year old human being. I have seen things like this in museums. I have also seen photos of "Lucy" the hominid who may have started "us". She lived 3.2 million years ago. To me, there is no doubt where I came from, a mutation that occurred 5 million years ago from a common ancestor that gave way to our present ape and me.

Creationists will continue to challange all of that. They have there own group of religious "scientists" that try to cast doubt on carbon testing, DNA, you name it. They can put up blockades here and there, but in the end they will lose big time. Look at what creationists are doing in some states. Their trying to teach there students that god, and not evolution, is responsible for human life, and the enormous body of scientists who think otherwise are wrong. How ignorant can that be.

Creationism is taught with words because it is 100% theory and they want evolution to be the same. This is an example of what the church is doing and why I dislike religious "brainwashing" so much.

There are very smart creationists here on the DBB, but all they have is words and the trained knowledge of how to manipulate those words into ever greater meanings. Unfortunately the book they are reading was never written, edited, or even composed by the god of the bible.

If religion is to survive, the (church) has to let go. Stop trying to undermine everything that science finds, and stop trying to get congress (the state) to pass stupid laws to try to suppress knowledge or place yellow stickers in my books. I belong to a science forum that has a religion section. The people there are laughed at because instead of talking intellegently, they make dumb claims that cannot be traced to any real evidence. This makes many evolutionists who were co-existing with god to begin with, shy farther away from the church because there attitude makes them look dumb. Unfortunately, I don't know what they could talk about without
showing evidence.

Evolution does not deny the existence of god but the creationist movement isn't satisfied with that. They want you to believe that evolution is a theory and the skulls we find are not human but some abomination. Forcing me to believe what the book says has driven me to see "creationists" as vile, evil, liars and troublemakers. Continue with this attitude and religion will die.

Religion needs to learn that it has to place itself in the heart of the human, not in a sticker on a book. I am an agnostic, not an atheist, because I continue to search for the truth. I can't say for sure if everything I see is all there is, because our whole universe could be nothing more than an electron orbiting some super nucleous of some super atom somewhere in another void.

Bettina

[Duper]

n/m

[Sirius]

We used to have Sirian for this.

Not that he ever got in on that topic.

[Fusion pimp]

Bett,

First of all, I apologize for using your name in the subjest line. I had no idea it bothered you.

Second, all I asked for was carification on what you believe sep/church/state was intended to mean.I had/have no intention of debating creation vs. Evolution.

B-

[Bet51987]

Bett,

First of all, I apologize for using your name in the subjest line. I had no idea it bothered you.

Second, all I asked for was carification on what you believe sep/church/state was intended to mean.I had/have no intention of debating creation vs. Evolution.

B-

Oh...Separation of church and state is as googled. I meant it differently though and got kind of long winded. Sorry, I was tired. Hope to see you in the mines soon.


Bettina

[Palzon]

Hope to see you in the mines soon.


Bettina

Unlikely. Barry had to have his stick-hand amputated due to severe carpal tunnel (not from playing d3 but from endless typing of various alias)

[Hostile]

LOL

[Fusion pimp]

Yeah, just ask Redbone. I singlehandedly ruined descent 3 by stat-padding because I had so many AKA's.
I did have RSI off and on for 3-4 years from too much play and it was no fun.

[Kilarin]

The point of Separation of Church and State is NOT just to protect the state from the Church. It was to protect the Church from the State. Religion is SAFEST when it operates in the free marketplace of ideas, without any kind of state support or interference.
It's quite simple. Right now we conservative Christians hold a very large powerbase in America, so many people seek to use that power to get the government to support our religion in preference to others. It's a DANGEROUS principle because power bases shift. Right now the state of Hawaii is majority Buddhist. If you lived there, would you want to be forced to pay tax dollars to support Buddhist shrines? Would you want the government putting Buddhist laws on the books? Of course not. So lets apply the golden rule here and not force other people to pay tax dollars to support OUR religion.

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle
with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant
usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I
have warmly supported religious freedom."
James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788.

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not
able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of
it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is
evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
Benjamin Franklin Letter to Dr. Price.

[Palzon]

It's a DANGEROUS principle because power bases shift.

finally someone from your side of the aisle who gets it. i commend you, sir, for standing out among your peers.

[Shoku]

It's a DANGEROUS principle because power bases shift.

finally someone from your side of the aisle who gets it. i commend you, sir, for standing out among your peers.

And Jesus would agree with you.

"They (Jesus' followers) are no part of the world, just as I (Jesus) am no part of the world." -John 17:16

"Jesus answered: 'My kingdom is no part of this world.'" -John 18:36

[Fusion pimp]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

[Palzon]

Last 30 years? Scopes monkey trial, anyone? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... scopes.htm

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Kilarin and I are coming from two totally different cosmological frameworks, yet we both agree on the dangers of legislating based on moral fads.

[Fusion pimp]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I know

[will_kill]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

...things that make ya' go hmmmm

[DCrazy]

Change "Christian principals" to "Judeochristian principles filtered through centuries of common Western European philosophy and law". Now you're not invoking the divine will of God by claiming our laws to be Christian.

[Bet51987]

Try not to blame the ills of the world, or things going bad, with removing religion from schools or challenging religious doctrine.

Just step back and see what religion has done to itself... Islam, book burnings, challenging evolution, beheadings, Pedophile priests and the lying bishops who protected them, top my list.

Bettina

[Dedman]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

...things that make ya' go hmmmm

Carefull. Correlation is not causation.

[Palzon]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

...things that make ya' go hmmmm

Carefull. Correlation is not causation.

Actually, Barry draws no improper conclusions. A Barry post is generally an elaborate setup for an inside joke he shares with himself and no one else

[Kilarin]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

So you wouldn't say that things were bad during the 1930's? Actually, you are leaving the 1960's out as well. And lets not forget that before the civil war America supported slavery, that was really nice. The 1890's were a period of decadence as well.
Also, when stating that our country was founded upon religious principles, don't forget that most of the founding fathers were NOT Baptist or Lutherans . They were Deist. Your pastor would have been horrified at the theology of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or most of the rest.
Which is all beside the point because actually I AGREE with you that this country has gone downhill in the last 30 years, and that the people forgetting God is one of the main reasons. Where we disagree is on whether INSTITUTIONALIZING Christianity can fix this.
Lets look at an example of how entangling government and religion HURTS religion.

The "United Methodist Children's Home" was established in 1871 specifically to take in orphans from the civil war and give them a proper Methodist home and upbringing. But in 2002 they ran into a snag. Two things came up at once. First, a Jewish man applied for a job and was turned down since it was the Church's policy that they only hired Christians. And they fired a teacher when they discovered she was a practicing lesbian.

Now normally these two issues would not be a problem. Being a church organization, they are allowed to hire and fire according to that churches principles. Ah, but here is the catch. They were taking government money. 40% of their funds, and that amounts to over a million dollars a year, comes from tax dollars. And those tax dollars come from each and every one of us. How would YOU feel if you discovered your tax dollars were funding an institution that refused to hire blacks or hispanics?

The courts determined, and I think correctly, that any organization that takes money from the government is required to comply with government non-discrimination policies. They took money from all of us, so they have to hire all of us.

This forced the United Methodist Children's Home to make a choice. They could give up the money, or they could give up their unique Christian character. It was a million dollars. You can not serve both God and mammon. They chose mammon. Under the restrictions, not only will they have to hire indescriminantly, they agreed to stop requiring orphans to attend church, and to cease all religious instruction. And now, if a child in the home brings up issues about sexual orientation or gender identity, the United Methodist Children's Home has agreed to refer them to "appropriate" supportive services, such as to Youth Pride. (An organization dedicated to service and support for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth.)

The "Methodist" children's home is now a secular institution.

And they are NOT an isolated case, and this process of the government pulling strings is nothing new. Back in 1989 the courts ruled that the Salvation Army could NOT fire a Wiccan, who distributed Satanic materials while working for them. The Salvation Army lost its religious hiring exemption because it accepted government money directly related to job of the lady being fired.

WHAT can the government accomplish for Christ's Church that the Church couldn't do better WITHOUT any so called "help"? In what way are we threatened by letting someone else make their own religious choices? It's the golden rule, let THEM choose how to worship (or not) for themselves so that WE will be allowed to worship God as we see fit.

Kilarin

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and... that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produced an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli, 1797, Article XI

[Fusion pimp]

Actually, Barry draws no improper conclusions. A Barry post is generally an elaborate setup for an inside joke he shares with himself and no one else

Once again, you're right.. you always are, just ask you.

Honestly, Matt..heh

[Palzon]

im only teasing you bro. you know i love ya.

[Dedman]

One things that you two seem to have forgotten(Palz/Kilarin), that is, this country was founded on Christian principles. It's only in the last 30 years that those principles have been challenged.Ironically, in the last 30 years things have gone terribly awry.

...things that make ya' go hmmmm

Carefull. Correlation is not causation.

Actually, Barry draws no improper conclusions. A Barry post is generally an elaborate setup for an inside joke he shares with himself and no one else

I wasn't referring to Barry.

[Fusion pimp]

im only teasing you bro. you know i love ya.

Mat,

I know you're simply poking fun at me, but you're choice of topics to rib me about are very, very poor. The two things I hold most dear next to my wife and kids are my faith and my country. This topic happens to touch on both. It might be a coincidence, but the two topics you seem to *want* to grind me on is.. yeah, you guessed it, my faith and my country. So much so that I usually refrain from saying anything on either topic if you've posted to spare myself from a bout of high blood pressure. We've dicussed faith in public and in private a few times over the years and in both venues we end up with few answers to many absurd questions. I can only judge the future by the past and in the past this is exactly what has happened.In the past it seems you've been more interested in being right/appearing smarter by attempting to manipulate the focus, or by making/laying out statements/questions that are designed to entrap rather than looking for genuine answers, moreso in a public forum than in private. You love to debate and that fine, you're good at it, but sometimes when you're with "friends" it's not about winning.

Why, you ask, did I chose now to say something?
Because my public response to your prodding was a bit rude. It could have been edited, but I felt it was something I couldn't take back and it needed a public explaination that would only make sense to the readers with an attached history.

Where we disagree is on whether INSTITUTIONALIZING Christianity can fix this.

We're actually not disagreeing. My point was- our country was founded on Christian principles and the majority of the population held strongly to Christian principles. There was no need to legislate with a bias toward the church. Individual responsibilty ruled so there was no need to institutionalize Christianity. The golden thread is, as you say, people forgetting God and losing their personal accountability.
Re: shift in power base.
I agree, the government should *not* show favoritism to any religion, nor should they fund or subsidize any religious organizations.They should stand on their own or fall on their own. But, we've come full circle over the past 30(40?)years with legislators manipulating constitutional matters to favor other religions that claim to be non-religious. Need I name drop? Better yet, theory drop?

The courts determined, and I think correctly, that any organization that takes money from the government is required to comply with government non-discrimination policies. They took money from all of us, so they have to hire all of us.

Absolutely!

WHAT can the government accomplish for Christ's Church that the Church couldn't do better WITHOUT any so called "help"? In what way are we threatened by letting someone else make their own religious choices? It's the golden rule, let THEM choose how to worship (or not) for themselves so that WE will be allowed to worship God as we see fit.

I agree! Problem is, it's not that simple.For instance: I am forced to pay local school taxes yearly even though neither of my children have ever set foot in a public classroom. Why? Because my children are *forced* to learn theories that go against our system of beliefs. Essntially, I'm being forced to financially support a curriculum that goes against our grain. Between local school taxes and the cost of private school I pay about 10k a year. Tell me, why should I have to pay for bankrupt, henotheistic curriculum that supports someone elses "religion"?

[Gooberman]

Between local school taxes and the cost of private school I pay about 10k a year. Tell me, why should I have to pay for bankrupt, henotheistic curriculum that supports someone elses "religion"?

1. I see no reason why the government shouldn't give a tax credit to any family whose child isn't putting a load on the public school system. The government is saving money off of your choice, so that money saved should be given back. Having said that..

2. Public education isn't there to help you, me, or your children; it is there to promote a better society. Just like the military, the goal is to help society not individuals. If you don't like the setup, then thats a political issue. If you don't like its existence, then thats also a political issue.

I don't like the war in Iraq, thats not my ideology--not my 'religion'--but I am paying for it. And that is how it should be, because my disagreement is a political disagreement. Whether I like it or not, our society has concluded that this is in its best interest, and being a member of, I must financially support it. It is the down side of democracy.

Society couldn't function if people were allowed to opt out of paying for the functions that they disagree with.

[Palzon]

im only teasing you bro. you know i love ya.

Mat,

I know you're simply poking fun at me, but you're choice of topics to rib me about are very, very poor. The two things I hold most dear next to my wife and kids are my faith and my country. This topic happens to touch on both. It might be a coincidence, but the two topics you seem to *want* to grind me on is.. yeah, you guessed it, my faith and my country. So much so that I usually refrain from saying anything on either topic if you've posted to spare myself from a bout of high blood pressure. We've dicussed faith in public and in private a few times over the years and in both venues we end up with few answers to many absurd questions. I can only judge the future by the past and in the past this is exactly what has happened.In the past it seems you've been more interested in being right/appearing smarter by attempting to manipulate the focus, or by making/laying out statements/questions that are designed to entrap rather than looking for genuine answers, moreso in a public forum than in private. You love to debate and that fine, you're good at it, but sometimes when you're with "friends" it's not about winning.

i think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. i pulled my comment (re: inside joke) out my a$$. it was meant for pure humor's sake and i certainly did not intend it in a mean way.

if i were to make a serious instead of jocular response to your post it should have been this...

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

i know

you've just picked the least salient sentence of the entire post from which you've quoted, quoted it out of context, and replied with a snarky one liner that fails to address the substance of the post from which you quoted.

and btw, that post from which you quoted hardly belies an attitude of wanting to win at all costs since i was clearly siding with someone whose "faith" i do not share. in fact, the post from which you've quoted was seeking clarification from you, not even contradicting your position.

yet, instead of clarifying your position (thereby running the risk of opening it to criticism at that juncture), you chose to make a smartass comment.

now mind you, i couldn't care less if you make me the brunt of a joke. but the fact is, since only you know where you are coming from (re: my comment asking for clarifiction) - your little "i know" comment is lost on me and the other readers here accept as a potshot indicating that you think i ought to know where you were coming from. therefore, you wasted an oppportunity to further the discussion between us. still, i have no problem with that or with being made the brunt of your snarky comment.

but...then your feathers get all ruffled when i make a snarky comment back at ya?

this is no sign that i prefer winning at all costs. this is a sign that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

lighten up, bro. i have no hard feelings against you. and there's no reason for you to make a federal case outta this.

[Fusion pimp]

i think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Maybe.

you've just picked the least salient sentence of the entire post from which you've quoted, quoted it out of context, and replied with a snarky one liner that fails to address the substance of the post from which you quoted.

and btw, that post from which you quoted hardly belies an attitude of wanting to win at all costs since i was clearly siding with someone whose "faith" i do not share. in fact, the post from which you've quoted was seeking clarification from you, not even contradicting your position.

yet, instead of clarifying your position (thereby running the risk of opening it to criticism at that juncture), you chose to make a smartass comment.

That's my point(to the post I spilled my guts on). I tend to avoid threads relating to faith/country because in the past, when I do open up my beliefs to criticism you've taken every opportunity take subtle pot-shots.

now mind you, i couldn't care less if you make me the brunt of a joke. but the fact is, since only you know where you are coming from (re: my comment asking for clarifiction) - your little "i know" comment is lost on me and the other readers here accept as a potshot indicating that you think i ought to know where you were coming from.

You know where I stand on both of these issues. The comment was designed as potshot, also, I was hoping by being vague you'd think about what I was trying to say without having to explain myself( since you know where I stand), which I did end up doing by responding to Kilarin's post.

therefore, you wasted an oppportunity to further the discussion between us.

Matt, did you read my post? I already addressed that. I was trying to avoid getting into a tangled, hair-splitting discussion that produces more questions than answers. That's what usually happens.

but...then your feathers get all ruffled when i make a snarky comment back at ya?

No, no.. my feathers aren't ruffled at all. In fact, the reason I didn't elaborate is to keep my feathers from being ruffled. Again, the point of my post.

this is no sign that i prefer winning at all costs.

That's how I've viewed our past discussions and I've actually had others mention it to me as well.

this is a sign that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Nah.. you know I can take it. But, I avoid opening myself up to the aggravation of being called a "Bible thumper" , "irrational" or, "intelectually dishonest", etc. It would be the equivalent of me calling calling you a heathen or a reprobate. You cannot make those types of comments in a discussion about something so personal and expect the other person to freely dish out information without feeling attacked. I don't have any desire to engage in a discussion that, in the past has gone on for 3-4 pages that literally goes no where. We have different authorities and until we can agree on something as simple as the legitimacy of sources, we're spinning wheels.

lighten up, bro. i have no hard feelings against you. and there's no reason for you to make a federal case outta this.

If it were something like my skill in game, my connect or my AKA's, I can take/dish it out with the best of them, you know that if you spent any time in game or chat. I do not take my faith or country lightly.

I do resent some of the things you've said in the past and I suppose this is my confession of that. Other than that, I do not have any hard feelings either. ( So I guess I do have some hard feelings, if you count that )

After sleeping on my post, I really think I should have kept my mouth shut or taken it to e-mail. Sorry to put you in bad space, Matt. Quite hypocritical of me, actually.

B-

[Kilarin]

I am forced to pay local school taxes yearly even though neither of my children have ever set foot in a public classroom.

Yet another place we are in agreement. My kid goes to private school as well.

Actually, I have grave misgivings about the entire public school system. It is simply impossible to have public schools without involving the government in debates that it should not be involved in. Unfortunantly, if you eliminate the public schools, you end up causing as many problems as you solve. I have no good solution for this issue.

Society couldn't function if people were allowed to opt out of paying for the functions that they disagree with.

I agree, with a caveat: Tax dollars are taken at gun point.

No, seriously, if you do NOT pay your taxes, they will come to arrest you. And if you resist arrest, they WILL shoot you. We take tax dollars by force.

And so, keeping that in mind, you should NEVER spend tax dollars on ANY project unless you really think it is important enough that they should shoot your grandmother if she won't contribute.

Wars fit into this category. And, in my opinion, so do roads, police, a court system and things along those lines. Supporting the "arts" does NOT. Christmas decorations on town hall do not. If it's not important enough to shoot (or jail) the people who disagree, it is NOT important enough to spend tax dollars on. Use your own money.

[WarAdvocat]

If it's not important enough to shoot (or jail) the people who disagree, it is NOT important enough to spend tax dollars on. Use your own money.

Hear Hear!

Of course, that's one of the fundamental flaws of Democracy. People will tend to vote for "bread and circuses"

*disclaimer: All systems of government have flaws.

[Sirian]

We used to have Sirian for this.

Not that he ever got in on that topic.

You must not have paid close attention.

- Sirian

[Fusion]

WHAT can the government accomplish for Christ's Church that the Church couldn't do better WITHOUT any so called "help"? In what way are we threatened by letting someone else make their own religious choices? It's the golden rule, let THEM choose how to worship (or not) for themselves so that WE will be allowed to worship God as we see fit.

I agree! Problem is, it's not that simple.For instance: I am forced to pay local school taxes yearly even though neither of my children have ever set foot in a public classroom. Why? Because my children are *forced* to learn theories that go against our system of beliefs. Essntially, I'm being forced to financially support a curriculum that goes against our grain. Between local school taxes and the cost of private school I pay about 10k a year.

If I may make a coment FP?
I went to private school from K-8 grade, and it was part of the church we went to. Even though my parents had to pay their taxes to support Public schools, they did it.
If you (the reader of this post) is a <insert religion here>, yet have to go to a Public School where they don't teach what you believe, just remember this: all you need to do is give them the answers they want, get the grade, and stay true to your beliefs.
If you believe that the God of Moses and Jacob created the earth in 6 days, that is your belief. Just cuz the Public school system is trying to teach you that Evolution, in some form, was the way the world was created, just give them what they want, and be true to yourself.

Fus

[Behemoth]

WHAT can the government accomplish for Christ's Church that the Church couldn't do better WITHOUT any so called "help"? In what way are we threatened by letting someone else make their own religious choices? It's the golden rule, let THEM choose how to worship (or not) for themselves so that WE will be allowed to worship God as we see fit.

I agree! Problem is, it's not that simple.For instance: I am forced to pay local school taxes yearly even though neither of my children have ever set foot in a public classroom. Why? Because my children are *forced* to learn theories that go against our system of beliefs. Essntially, I'm being forced to financially support a curriculum that goes against our grain. Between local school taxes and the cost of private school I pay about 10k a year.

If I may make a coment FP?
I went to private school from K-8 grade, and it was part of the church we went to. Even though my parents had to pay their taxes to support Public schools, they did it.
If you (the reader of this post) is a <insert religion here>, yet have to go to a Public School where they don't teach what you believe, just remember this: all you need to do is give them the answers they want, get the grade, and stay true to your beliefs.
If you believe that the God of Moses and Jacob created the earth in 6 days, that is your belief. Just cuz the Public school system is trying to teach you that Evolution, in some form, was the way the world was created, just give them what they want, and be true to yourself.

Fus

Sounds almost exactly like what i was going to say, There is no point in arguing with people who arent going to accept what you say because as we see in

1 Cor. 2:14 "14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Makes perfect sense when people want to argue that religion or anything spiritual cant be proven.

On topic, i support seperation of church and state in the context that is was intended,to relieve the church or any other religious institution of the fear of being controlled by the mainstream government.

[Suncho]

Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but I completely agree with Bettina.