Guest shiloh357 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Running Gator said: Is this any different than those people that go "show me the word "rapture" in the Bible", or some other such thing. So, while the word separation is not in the constitution, I think it is clear they did not want a marriage between religion and the government. What they didn't' want was a state controlled religion like the Church of England. The the establishment clause of first amendment in the Constitution was originally crafted to protect Christians from the state and from a state religion. John Leland and Isaac Backus with the help of of Jefferson and Madison defeated John Adams and others both who wanted a state religion. If not for Leland and the Danbury Baptists, we would all be Episcopalians. John Adams said, "you would sooner change course of the heavenly luminaries, than to prevent a state church." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill16652 Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 288 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 312 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Running Gator said: Is this any different than those people that go "show me the word "rapture" in the Bible", or some other such thing. So, while the word separation is not in the constitution, I think it is clear they did not want a marriage between religion and the government. I also do not believe that they ever intended it to be interpreted the way it is now. It is rediculous and any Christian knows it, I think the other side does as well and want to see if they can push it clear out odf the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Bill16652 said: I also do not believe that they ever intended it to be interpreted the way it is now. It is rediculous and any Christian knows it, I think the other side does as well and want to see if they can push it clear out odf the way. Are you suggesting that anyone that does not agree with you, thus does not "know it", is not a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 55 minutes ago, Bill16652 said: I also do not believe that they ever intended it to be interpreted the way it is now. It is rediculous and any Christian knows it, I think the other side does as well and want to see if they can push it clear out odf the way. The original, historical intent of the establishment clause was not to protect the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. It was a response to the persecution of the Baptists in Virginia by the Church of England, that had made its way to the colonies, and meant to protect Christians from the government. Today, the establishment clause has been stood on its head to protect the government from the Christians. I say Christians because they will allow schools to accommodate the Muslim religion, but bring up the establishment clause as justification for expunging any semblance of Christianity from schools or government property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Noodle Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 573 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 329 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/27/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 Well, now that we have at least one righteous Christian on SCOTUS this decision may turn in our favor. Let's pray so. What a blatant act of religious discrimination. Disgusting! If this was a daycare owned and operated by homosexuals, sponsored by GLAAD, with their recruiting arm GLSEN as part of the curriculum, bet this would have never made news. Because the funding would have been there without question. As would be the case most assuredly if this was a madrasah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Bill16652 said: Someone please show me the word seperation in the constitution. It is not worded the way many believe it is You're right; it's not. Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution itself. It states that government cannot promote or favor any religion. The confusion happens when people don't READ the Constitution but, instead, repeat what others have said about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 minute ago, MorningGlory said: You're right; it's not. Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution itself. It states that government cannot promote or favor any religion. The confusion happens when people don't READ the Constitution but, instead, repeat what others have said about it. So, is giving a religion money promoting it or favoring it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, Running Gator said: So, is giving a religion money promoting it or favoring it? It depends; if the money is given to ALL schools, such as islamic madrassas, , and is for safety upgrades, then it's equal protection under the law. If the money can't be given to the Christian school then it can't be given to ANY faith based schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 minute ago, MorningGlory said: It depends; if the money is given to ALL schools, such as islamic madrassas, , and is for safety upgrades, then it's equal protection under the law. If the money can't be given to the Christian school then it can't be given to ANY faith based schools. I agree totally! It has to be either all or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted April 20, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Just curious - I wonder if the playground in question is open to all (like a public school playground would be); or if it is fenced in and locked and only open to those children who attend school there. The reason this occurred to me is that when my grandchildren visit (they attend school two hours away), we go to the local elementary school playground even though they don't attend there. The answer to that question might sway the outcome, I would think. Although for liability issues, I would understand if the playground was limited to only those children attending that school. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts