You're ignoring the point.


Again, ignoring the point.
You talk about how Islam is going to "take over", yet you ignore Christians who will self-defend if such is tried.
You keep trying to change the subject.


Another strawman argument. I have made no such claim, and you obviously can't argue against what I AM saying so you try to make it into something else.
And when I point out the lie, you whine despite the fact that the label is accurate.


Separation of church and state. Period.
If he has secular reasoning, that's all well and good.
If his reasoning is purely religious, it belongs in the church and not the government.



And in the minds of our founding fathers which established "separation of church and state".
What's funny is how YOU act like a zealot extremist, by labelling our Supreme Court justices as "criminals", yet you try to pin that label on me when I want to honor the constitution and the EXISTING separation of church and state.


And another meaningless non-sequitur...


That's just dumb.
No other word for it.
Suppose he wanted to put JUST the first commandment into U.S. law. No other gods but the Christian god, if he uses a christian standard.
And then he doesn't care about the 10th commandment. Only the first commandment.
Are you seriously saying that's not a problem then?


I am insisting that ANY INDIVIDUAL religious standard with no secular purpose utilized in law is a violation of separation of church and state.
For some inane reason, you think all 10 commandments have to be used. And that I have no argument if he isn't using all 10.


I was talking hypothetically to make a point. Thus the word "IF..."
And you have no response, so you obfuscate, ignore the point, and demur your way onto a meaningless rejoinder.


It's obfuscation to IGNORE the fact that there IS ONLY ONE day used to try and fixate on some meaningless imaginary situation that doesn't exist.
YOU asked for an example.
I GAVE an example.
And now you're running around trying to say "yeah, but what if we actually had THIS situation...", ignoring the whole point of the requested example in the first place.


That's not what I'm getting at, and your comment is pointless.
Just because another definition may be less often used doesn't detract that it IS USED, and is a VALID USE of the word.


This is just stupid. You can repeat your denial all you want, but it's absurd.
The first amendment talks about establishment OF RELIGION.
Putting laws or constitutional amendments in "God's standards" IS religious.
It is on the SUBJECT of religion.
I have named the example, and you are trying to cry up a storm because a specific church is not named?
A specific church name IS NOT NEEDED. The first amendment doesn't say anything about a specific church name.
It talks about RELIGION, which doesn't need a church.


In your daily lives, sure. I never said otherwise.
Try to read IN CONTEXT and you won't confuse yourself so much.
We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL POLICY, and solely religious standard reasoning IS forbidden as justification for governmental policy.


Didn't I just clearly establish that was outside the bounds of this discussion?
YOU are allowed to "use" your religious values.
You are NOT allowed to ENFORCE your religious values on others.
If you can't appreciate the distinction, then you're even more the "extremist". If you think that YOUR religious freedom demands that you make laws that ENFORCE your religious values upon others, that's another example of how you're an extremist.


I swear. Leading a horse to water...
YOU CAN use your religious values. You have FREE EXERCISE of religion.
But NO free exercise of religion exists if OTHERS can enforce THEIR religion upon the people.

YOU want to fixate on how YOUR religious "freedoms" are denied based on whether or not you can deny OTHER PEOPLE religious freedom.

And once again, jumping from one topic to another.
I used the word "all", so therefore you start talking about something else ENTIRELY DIFFERENT using the word all, and try to claim a point.


So sayeth you.
The applied law says differently.


Huckabee didn't just "think".
He OPENLY STATED his intentions.
If I were to state openly that I was going to put myself in a position to rob the store, and I was IN THE PROCESS of putting myself in a position to rob the store, do you think that the people "hiring me" would be smart if they just ignored what I announced?

And just out of curiousity, are you calling Huckabee a LIAR about what he has OPENLY STATED he wants to do?
Are you saying he has no intention of doing what he stated?


Show me EVEN ONE of those statements that was taken out of context.
It is boring how you habitually claim "taken out of context", but then do absolutely nothing to show how.
I am betting you hadn't even heard of HALF of those statements, but you just blindly claim "taken out of context" cause it's a sleazy defense, but the fact that you know NOTHING of the actual context makes you a liar even more...


I swear. The obfuscation of the sheep.
If anybody else has any doubts on what Falwell was ACTUALLY doing when he INVOKED these 3 judges' sicknesses when he talked about them retiring, please let me know.
Adept is obviously unwilling to acknowledge what he was doing, so there is no point belaboring the point with him.


And as I stated, it IS extremist to label a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE as a "criminal" when they have broken no law.
People on the right justifiably complain about leftist extremists who label GW Bush as a "war criminal".
But what you're doing is just as bad for the rightist extremist side.


You really need to try to sit down and figure out what an analogy is, cause you suck at it.
We were TALKING ABOUT Falwell PRAYING that the Supreme Court justices retire.
And in response, you say the above as a response.

Fine. Tell you what.
You start talking about christians, and then I'll turn around and talk about how it's absurd for you to complain that child rapists should run day-cares.
Obviously THAT's an analogy then, huh...


You can only think one step at a time. I should learn to recognize that.
The REASON that question was asked was regarding a JUSTIFICATION for why churches should not pay taxes.
THAT is WHY the question was asked.

So for you to turn around and give that answer would INTUITIVELY, WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the EXISTING discussion, put "religion" in with the same group.

Geez. Something is said and you COMPLETELY forget what the whole purpose of it was...


False.
Definitions take ONE definition.
Not all or as many as you want.
And NO court has ever ruled that "free" in the first amendment means a monetary "free".


Like I was saying earlier, you are completely lost and can't think back to previous statements.
The WHOLE POINT of this was that if a church VIOLATES non-profit standards, then the church LOSES tax exemption.
Are you NOW saying that is fine by you?



Yes. And this case I'll criticize you for IGNORING words.
HERE is what he said...

And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

He did not "only suggest".
He said this is "what we need to do".


1) By that logic, if we are forbidding INDIVIDUAL commandments, then we are obviously not forbidding the WHOLE religion because the WHOLE religion is only ALL the ten commandments.
< end sarcasm >
Sometimes I think the best way to respond to you is to adopt similar absurd statements, and just run whole-hog with it.

2) So, interpreting what Huckabee ACTUALLY said (from your explanation), he wants to put ALL TEN commandments in there.
He said "we NEED to" do that.

3) Furthermore, that is YOUR interpretation.
If anybody else out there shares that interpretation and wants a discussion, let me know.
That perspective is just too far out there and too inane to be taken seriously if it's just Adept.


That is your opinion.
There is TONS of legal precedent proving you wrong.
Your capability to ignore that is not an argument.
It IS unconstitutional to place a law out there with a RELIGIOUS rationalization (and no secular purpose to be found).

Quote:You
A presidential nominee HAS to be Christian in order to have any chance at winning.
ME/ Or at least pretend like Bill.
You/ You're ignoring the point.
I reiterate the point and you call "ignore". Use some brainpower if Bill pretended in order to win then I am AGREEING with your statement not ignoring it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Just because he wants to use "some" of the standards in helping to do the right thing.
You/ Separation of church and state. Period.
If he has secular reasoning, that's all well and good.
If his reasoning is purely religious, it belongs in the church and not the government.
Could you explain to me how "Separation of church and state. Period." does not mean ALL?

You/ If his reasoning is purely religious, it belongs in the church and not the government.
Well; duh......Even I agree with that AS I HAVE STATED! I wonder who has made such an indictment/implication that what Mike was referring to was ONLY religious in nature.

You/ What's funny is how YOU act like a zealot extremist, by labelling our Supreme Court justices as "criminals", yet you try to pin that label on me when I want to honor the constitution and the EXISTING separation of church and state
My My what perverted twists of logic you keep falling into by not being able to understand analogies. I NEVER labeled the SCOTUS justices as criminals. They were entirely separate from my analogy ABOUT criminals and whether it would be so bad to pray for CRIMINALS to retire. The next sentence talked about how Rev F. "might think of them as criminals" and never ever did I ever try to claim that YOU were a criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
"Life" alone is an unsufficient issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Without a life there are NO issues.

You/ And another meaningless non-sequitur...
Life is hardly an "insufficient issue". YOUR life may be meaningless, I however don't think of mine that way.

You/ That's just dumb.
No other word for it.
Suppose he wanted to put JUST the first commandment into U.S. law. No other gods but the Christian god, if he uses a christian standard.
And then he doesn't care about the 10th commandment. Only the first commandment.
Are you seriously saying that's not a problem then?
Suppose that he wanted to put in just the 6th(about murder) or the 8th (about stealing) are you seriously saying that there IS a problem there. Now that would be just DUMB. Those are "Christian standards" and by your rules must be excluded. Only a MORON would think that he was trying to get ALL of "God's standards" into our Constitution just because he said we need to get our Constitution "closer" to Gods standards knowing full well that he CAN NOT get into law anything with a purely religious intent and no other reason(to use your own words).

You/ And that I have no argument if he isn't using all 10.
So then even YOU admit that you actually have NO ARGUMENT because he obviously and definitely even you agree is NOT using all 10.

You/ It's obfuscation to IGNORE the fact that there IS ONLY ONE day used to try and fixate on some meaningless imaginary situation that doesn't exist.
YOU asked for an example.
I GAVE an example.
And now you're running around trying to say "yeah, but what if we actually had THIS situation...", ignoring the whole point of the requested example in the first place.
Don't make me call you stupid. Saturday is the holy day to several religions and I tell YOU pick ANY day of the week including Sunday AND I agree with YOU and I cite some obvious fallacies to your argument like "sales are prohibited" EVERY day and somehow you say I am obfuscating and ignoring and being imaginative(well I'll accept that one) with situations that "don't exist" when they are so obvious that an idiot would know them to be true. Is this that same old "analogy problem" that you continue to display?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Call it whatever you like you CANNOT give me an answer. IF YOU CAN"T NAME IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST..PERIOD..
Talk about obfuscation. Now for the EIGHTH time refute it or give it. PERIOD.

This statement is true about EVERYTHING. I'll accept it as disproved if you can disprove it about anything and I'm not limiting it to the "religion" that Huckabee is trying to "impose" on you.
Please refute me or give me.......... I want out........ This thread has been boring me far to long and is far beyond what was only a simple statement by one of a dozen presidential candidates(only one of which can win) that has been "over dramatized" to the point of obnoxiousness. Start a new thread with some of the Stalinist Statements coming from your side like "take the profits" or any of those "budget busting" "give" idiocies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Religion is NOT "forbidden". No matter how far you stretch your definitions. All are allowed to use their religion in determining what is right or wrong and in most religions what is right or wrong is also determined by thousands of years of society(which IS your secular reasons for most laws).

you/ In your daily lives, sure. I never said otherwise.
Try to read IN CONTEXT and you won't confuse yourself so much.
We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL POLICY, and solely religious standard reasoning IS forbidden as justification for governmental policy.
Tis not I who is confused here. I'm just trying to figure out where this "solely religious standard reasoning" BS you keep citing came from in reality when even you admit that it would be impossible to impose laws OR Constitutional changes using such a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
NOR does it require that it have NONE

You/ So sayeth you.
The applied law says differently.
DOES NOT! Then we have no laws agreeing with the 6th or 8th commandment correct?

You/ I am betting you hadn't even heard of HALF of those statements, but you just blindly claim "taken out of context" cause it's a sleazy defense, but the fact that you know NOTHING of the actual context makes you a liar even more...
Hell! I agree with far more than Half of them. My question to you though is as an anti-religious zealot how could YOU possibly "understand" what they were saying?

you/ And as I stated, it IS extremist to label a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE as a "criminal" when they have broken no law.
People on the right justifiably complain about leftist extremists who label GW Bush as a "war criminal".
But what you're doing is just as bad for the rightist extremist side.
Still got that "analogy problem" huh? Reread it till you "understand" what I said. Perhaps the reference to same in the previous post will help. But just in case I'll repeat it AGAIN. I talked about criminals. I talked about how the rev might "think" that the judges were criminals but I NEVER accused anyone of being a criminal not even you.

You/ You really need to try to sit down and figure out what an analogy is, cause you suck at it.
We were TALKING ABOUT Falwell PRAYING that the Supreme Court justices retire.
And in response, you say the above as a response.

Fine. Tell you what.
You start talking about christians, and then I'll turn around and talk about how it's absurd for you to complain that child rapists should run day-cares.
Obviously THAT's an analogy then, huh...
How's come your analogies like to include perverts and child molesters? It was only you that insist that I was referring to the judges in my criminal analogy when I the INVENTOR of that analogy have told you repeatedly both directly and indirectly that I was talking about real criminals(thieves, murderers, muggers, rapists and your often included perverts)

You/ The WHOLE POINT of this was that if a church VIOLATES non-profit standards, then the church LOSES tax exemption.
Are you NOW saying that is fine by you?
The WHOLE POINT of this was that if a church VIOLATES non-profit standards, then the church LOSES tax exemption. YES! AND I asked you to name me that church just like you asked me to "name" those that did not pay taxes. And I named them now you name yours.

You/ He did not "only suggest".
He said this is "what we need to do".
Duh.......What "we need to do" is a "suggestion" by any person other than a "slave master"

You/AGAIN/ It IS unconstitutional to place a law out there with a RELIGIOUS rationalization (and no secular purpose to be found).
The second part of you sentence(the part in parenthesis) is what you are putting in or taking away as it pleases you to do to try to prove a point. THAT IS MY POINT. I totally agree with your WHOLE sentence but you however keep wanting to use JUST the first half.

================================================== ===========

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

My point is "separation of church and state" is violated in cases of some but not necessarily all.


Again, I note a completely absent mention of ANY secular rationale.
Furthermore, it explicitly CONDEMNS "modern" secular rationale in its phrasing.


I rest my case in what you ACTUALLY said and did.
We were talking about the prayers for the JUSTICES to retire.
And you reply that you think it isn't so bad praying for CRIMINALS to retire.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. If anybody out there finds Adept's explanation convincing, please let me know and I'll go through it.
Otherwise, there is no point beating a dead parrot just because you insist it's alive.


Desparately trying to change the subject.
This never had anything to do with me talking about you calling me a criminal.


Keep my comment in context.
You're trying desparately to change the subject, avoid my point, and try to side-track me onto something I never even alluded at.
CONTEXT.
Life is not sufficient, in and of itself, to justify an automatic policy protecting each and every example of it without question and without condition.


Already addressed.
There are secular justifications for those laws.


Already answered.
If the ONLY justification for the law is religious, the law fails.
Your antics are boring and repetitive.


1) Only a MORON would think that I was saying he wants "ALL" of god's standards.
I have repeatedly stated I do not, and I have repeatedly stated that it does not matter whether it is "ALL" or just "one" that has a religious only with no secular justification argument.

2) Quite frankly, I know what he can and cannot do.
Does HE know what he can and cannot do. THAT is more the issue.

3) "a purely religious intent and no other reason(to use your own words)"
Amazing how you just said that, but just a few lines ago you ignored it.
Evidently your memory is selective, and your arguments fabricated on which actual position of mine you want to hyperbolize and which parts you want to ignore.


Your deceit knows no bounds.
Here is the FULL TEXT of what I said:
foundit66: For some inane reason, you think all 10 commandments have to be used. And that I have no argument if he isn't using all 10.

I was stating what argument you appeared to be posing.
I was not agreeing with you.
Learn some English comprehension.

To reiterate, there is NO LOGIC in any pretense that he has to be putting ALL TEN commandments into effect before a violation of separation of church and state is seen.
There is so much legal precedent condemning such a position it isn't even funny.


I have already refuted it. Repeatedly.
The constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE that a SPECIFIC church be "established".
It talks about the establishment OF RELIGION. The very SUBJECT of religion, not ever requiring a specific church.

That is at the heart of some of the standards I have been REPEATING. Repeating not only in the sense that I have had to repeatedly explain them to you, but repeating in the sense that it is NOT EVEN MY standard to begin with, but rather repeating a standard OUR AMERICAN COURTS have explained.

At the heart of this, it is not me you are arguing with, but rather a LONG LINE of historical precedent.

If you want to quit, then go for it. Nothing is stopping you.


"impossible"? No.
"Unconstitutional"? Yes.

Take Terry Schiavo for example. In response to her case, Congress passed a BLATANTLY unconstitutional law. When they were passing it, they ADMITTED it violated the constitution. Openly stated IN the Congressional voting room.
But the passed it anyways. And it DID pass.

As for "solely religious standard reasoning", I had hoped you had some rudimentary knowledge of "separation of church and state".
Obviously, you have none.
I am probably going to regret this, but I am going to try to educate you. I predict you will thoroughly misrepresent the statements said and ignore those you don't like, but here you go.
Edu-mah-cate yourself...
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; "


1) I'm not "anti-religious".
I believe in a secular government.

2) I comprehend English.

3) Again, I challenge you.
Point to ANY misrepresentation or taking out of context from that web-site.
Quit with your repeated false claims and PROVE what you say.


We were talking about them asking for the JUSTICES to retire.
You replied talking about asking for CRIMINALS to retire.

This pretense on "analogy" is an absurd lie on your part.
So you chose an analogy with the EXACT SAME ACTION, "retire", and just changed the word "justice" to "criminal", without trying to implicate the PREVIOUS discussion whereby others had done the exact same thing in seriousness?


I swear. Forest for the trees.
I was saying what I would do PREDICATED ON YOUR ACTIONS. That it would be just as intelligent as what you were doing.
You claim my analogies "like to include"?
Can you point to ANYWHERE else where I used an analogy on child rapists?

You lie so much I think you don't even know what the truth is.


Actually, this is the FIRST time you have made THAT request.
But here you go.
Church loses tax exempt status - The Business Journal of Phoenix:
There are other stories on people INVESTIGATING whether that action should be taken if you want those too.

The point is simple.
Churches EARN non-profit status.
There is NO RIGHT to it.


"we could do this" is a suggestion.
"we need to do this" is a statement of committment when coming from a presidential candidate stumping for votes.

I suppose that if a Republican presidential candidate says "We need to pull out of Iraq", you would just take THAT as a suggestion?


That's just a stupid lie.
As you tried to put forth repeatedly in your post, if that WERE my position then I would want laws against murder and robbery off the books because they had religious overlap.
I do not.

If you want to try and argue with me as to what my ACTUAL position is, then go ahead.
You'll lose.
I'm the expert on my opinion, and when pressed for proof of your claims you will fail miserably.

How do you plan to amend the constitution in God's standard? Amendment of constitution must be base on democratic rules without political interest whatsoever made by any politicians

__________________
To be a poet or nothing.

I remember from this forum having a thread showing JFK and his political standpoint in the separation of the church and state. Is the people in Washington did not learn from JFK?