Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…3738404243…106

Comments

  • Options
    #1172
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively referring to the separation/disavantaging of Christianity by the state ... or possibly the dis-establisment of an Established Church, in a state where one exists.

    I hate to be the one who tell you this but the world isnt out to get Christianity and its not the main target. Separation of church and state is about all religions, we arent planning on replacing Christianity with Islam and Buddhism and rounding all the Christians into camps. Its for the purpose that laws arent created based on religion and forced on others. Christianity is not a special snowflake, its a religion like any other and people are treating it like any other.


  • Options
    #1173
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I hate to be the one who tell you this but the world isnt out to get Christianity and its not the main target. Separation of church and state is about all religions, we arent planning on replacing Christianity with Islam and Buddhism and rounding all the Christians into camps. Its for the purpose that laws arent created based on religion and forced on others. Christianity is not a special snowflake, its a religion like any other and people are treating it like any other.
    If that is the case then why do you (continue to) use the word 'church' in the phrase ... why don't you talk about the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    The phrase is either wrong ... in which case, it should be corrected to mean what you actually mean ... or it is correct, in which case it clearly falls foul of the First Amendment and equality principles.


  • Options
    #1174
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    That's why they meant by colloquialism. It's just a turn of phrase. 'Church' refers to individual denominations of religion.


  • Options
    #1175
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    If that is the case then why do you (continue to) use the word 'church' in the phrase ... why don't you talk about the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    Its a phrase that is a shorter method of saying that. By church they mean religious organisation.


  • Options
    #1176
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Its a phrase that is a shorter method of saying that. By church they mean religious organisation.
    It is a very serious concept being promoted as a method by which laws and states can be judged ... so which is it exactly?

    ... 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1177
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    That's why they meant by colloquialism. It's just a turn of phrase. 'Church' refers to individual denominations of religion.
    ... and what about groups of people who hold irreligious beliefs, like Atheism ... or indeed anti-religious beliefs?


  • Options
    #1178
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    It is a very serious concept being promoted as a method by which laws and states can be judged ... so which is it exactly?

    ... 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    They are the same. Its all about context ;)
    J C wrote: »
    ... and what about groups of people who hold ireligious beliefs, like Atheism?

    Irreligious beliefs arent an issue, the government just doesnt say weather or not there is a God and its avoided.


  • Options
    #1179
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    They are the same. Its all about context ;)
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • Options
    #1180
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.

    The original poster of the picture may have better things to do than trying to find where this thread has gone.

    In a thread discussing the use of US government property, I posted a picture and asked if it was US government owned property. I did not state where it was, nor attempt to conceal its location. I believe many on this forum to be Godless, but I do not believe you to be brainless, I imagine you can look at a url as well as anyone else. A lie would have arisen if I had made false url or false legend stating that the cemetery was in the US.

    You could, and did, make the point that being outside the US made this special case and so not proving a general point. This is fair point in debate, but accusing me of a lie is not.

    The only untruth here is your statement that I posted a lie, and I ask to to withdraw this falsehood.


  • Options
    #1181
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Irreligious beliefs arent an issue, the government just doesnt say weather or not there is a God and its avoided.
    Irreligious beliefs are, of course, an issue ... the American prohibition on the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... logically also applies to irreligion and Atheistic Humanism ... which is a religious belief, like all the others.

    ... but of course, if I'm an Atheist, it would be very 'convenient' if I could excuse myself and my fellow Atheists from this particular aspect of the First Amendment ... and I could hide behind the dogma of the 'separation of the Christian Church from the State' ... as I got ever-closer to the State myself and had my beliefs increasingly enshrined in law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1182
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    Separation of church and state is the phrase used by people, the constitutions tend to word it something more like "not to endow any religion". When people say separation of church and state they are talking about not endowing any religion.
    J C wrote: »
    Irreligious beliefs are, of course, an issue ... the American prohibition on the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... logically also applies to irreligion and Atheistic Humanism ... which is a religious belief, like all the others.

    ... but of course, if I'm an Atheist, it would be very 'convenient' if I could excuse myrself and my fellow Atheists from this particular aspect of the First Amendment ... and I could hide behind the dogma of the 'separation of the Christian Church from the State' ... as I got ever-closer to the State myself and had my beliefs increasingly enshrined in law.

    What are these beliefs?


  • Options
    #1183
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It's about using precise language when it comes to such an important issue.
    ... so is it actually the advocacy of anti-christian discrimination ... or the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    So you are choosing to be pedantic again when you know quite well what is meant by "church & state".


  • Options
    #1184
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So you are choosing to be pedantic again when you know quite well what is meant by "church & state".
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?


  • Options
    #1185
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    What are these beliefs?
    The separation of Church and State, the belief that there is no God and therefore materialistic explantions are the only ones to be accepted and provided with state support, the belief that public expression of religious faith shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school. the belief that the state shouldn't financially support any school with a particular religious ethos, the belief that full respect shouldn't be accorded to religious beliefs in hospitals, the military and prisons including the provision of a chaplancy service ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    I'm sure that you guys can think of a few more.

    ... and if I'm wrong about any of these ... please feel free to correct me.


  • Options
    #1186
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    It's BOTH!!!!

    Why is it so hard for you to accept this?


  • Options
    #1187
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Why do you guys have such a sudden problem with being precise in what you are saying?

    I've asked two simple questions ... can somebody please answer them, instead of using all kinds of avoidance and diversionary tactics.

    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1188
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    The separtion of Church and State,

    Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    J C wrote: »
    the belief that there is no God,

    That is one, how is it being enshrined in law?
    J C wrote: »
    the belief that religious faith and its public expression shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    Back to: Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.


  • Options
    #1189
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The separtion of Church and State,

    shruikan2553
    Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    ... only if they were 'turkeys voting for Christmas'.

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    the belief that there is no God

    shruikan2553
    That is one, how is it being enshrined in law?
    All kind of ways ranging from pressing for the 'separation' / discrimination against Christianity by the state ... to the legal proscription of religious expression in public and in schools.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    the belief that religious faith and its public expression shouldn't be allowed, the belief that religious faith shouldn't be expressed in school ... and that's just a few off the top of my head.

    shruikan2553
    Back to: Not Atheist, most who arent part of the largest religion in a country would be for it and even people who are share this belief.
    Turkeys ... and Christmas comes to mind.


  • Options
    #1190
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    The free lease in perpetuity grants beneficial ownership of the lands

    Just like with everything else you say you're wrong on this. The only bit of land in Luxemburg that is US territory (by international law, convention, and treaty) is situated on 22 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, L-2535 Luxembourg, because the only part of one country that another country can own legally or de facto istheir embassy to that other country.

    JC the more I hear of your ignorant nonsense, the more I come to accept that there are prokaryotes with bigger brain capacities than what you displace.


  • Options
    #1191
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... which is it exactly?

    ... 1. 'the separation of church and state'?

    ... 2. the 'separation of all religions and none from the state'?

    bumper234
    It's BOTH!!!!.
    It cannot be both ... as one is a subset of the other ... unless you are saying that 2 is the actual position.
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.
    wrote:
    SW
    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.
    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1192
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The original poster of the picture may have better things to do than trying to find where this thread has gone.

    So, again instead of actually owning up to your own mistake and retracting it, like any honest and decent person would do, you deflect from the issue at hand, that a) you made a false statement, and b) I corrected you on it. What you've done for the second time, is lied about what you said in the first post, and indirectly admitted that you deliberatly lied in your first post.
    The only untruth here is your statement that I posted a lie, and I ask to to withdraw this falsehood.

    Until you apologise for your misleading statement regarding your original post, and retract it, stating that a) you were wrong and b) the First Amendment to the US constitution does prohibit the use of religious iconography on state property (i.e. the opposite of what you are arguing up until now), I will not retract my accusation, which is amply evidenced both by your original post, and by your subsequent deflections and cover ups.


  • Options
    #1193
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It cannot be both ... as one is a subset of the other.
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.

    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?

    Irreligion is indifference to religion, i.e. neither for or against religion. How exactly can there be separation of church and state if irreligion isn't allowed?

    EDIT: and how exactly do you organise indifference? :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1194
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Just like with everything else you say you're wrong on this. The only bit of land in Luxemburg that is US territory (by international law, convention, and treaty) is situated on 22 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, L-2535 Luxembour, because the only part of one country that another country can own legally or de facto istheir embassy to that other country.

    JC the more I hear of your ignorant nonsense, the more I come to accept that there are prokaryotes with bigger brain capacities than what you displace.
    Less of the name calling, please.
    Leases in Perpetuity are also recognised in International Law ... and they grant absolute authority over the lands concerned to the lessee ... and they have been used historically to legally establish sovereign colonies on the territories of other countries.

    Beneficial ownership and total control by the lessee State characterise these Leases.


  • Options
    #1195
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    ... only if they were 'turkeys voting for Christmas'.

    All kind of ways ranging from pressing for the 'separation' / discrimination against Christianity by the state ... to the legal proscription of religious expression in public and in schools.

    Turkeys ... and Christmas comes to mind.

    How has Christianity been discriminated against that is unique to them? You seem to only think about Christianity but show no worry about any other religions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_State
    The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

    You are the only person that sees the two as different.


  • Options
    #1196
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    If you are saying that it is the 'separation of all religions and none from the state' ... please say so.

    ... and what about the place of organised irreligion, in all of this?

    SW
    Irreligion is indifference to religion, i.e. neither for or against religion. How exactly can there be separation of church and state if irreligion isn't allowed?

    :pac:
    I'm not talking about irreligion not being allowed ... I'm just saying that it should be included in the proposed 'separation from the state'.
    ... but the fact that you think that the inclusion of irreligion in the list to be 'separated from the State', will result in it 'not being allowed' ... tells us all we need to know about what you think the ultimate purpose of the 'separation of church and state' to be.
    SW wrote: »
    EDIT: and how exactly do you organise indifference?
    Irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion or anything else.
    Atheist Ireland and similar organisations seem to be doing a very good job at organising irreligion!!!
    I'd suggest that you ask them how they do it.


  • Options
    #1197
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not talking about irreligion not being allowed ... just included in the proposed 'separation from the state'.
    ... but the fact that you think that the inclusion of irreligion in the list to be 'separated from the State', will result in it 'not being allowed' ... tells us all we need to know about what you think the real purpose of the 'separation of church and state' to be.

    Irreligion is not taking a stance on religion, be it pro or anti-religion. How exactly do you separate church and state while at the same time say irreligion must also be separated from the state? It makes zero sense.
    Atheist Ireland and similar organisations seem to be doing a very good job at this!!!
    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1198
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Irreligion is not taking a stance on religion, be it pro or anti-religion. How exactly do you separate church and state while at the same time say irreligion must also be separated from the state? It makes zero sense.


    Atheist Ireland are promoting the separation of church and state, true. But I wouldn't consider them an irreligious group as they certainly aren't indifferent to religion and its place in society/the world.
    I agree that Atheism/irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion and its place in society ... and that is another very good reason why Atheism / irreligion should also be separated from the State ... if religion is to be.


  • Options
    #1199
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Irreligion is not the same as atheism. This discussion might go better if you didn't confuse the two.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1200
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that Atheism/irreligion generally isn't indifferent to religion and its place in society ... and that is another very good reason why Atheism / irreligion should also be separated from the State ... if religion is to be.

    Atheism is completely neutral and isn't bound to the bias of any religion... so if atheism is the only neutral step, why should it be separated from the state.

    That's completely illogical


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1201
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    So, again instead of actually owning up to your own mistake and retracting it, like any honest and decent person would do,

    I object to the contention that I am not an honest and decent person. I did not make a mistake, so cannot own up to it. I wished to post a picture that raised the question that a US funded facility might have religious symbols. I posted such a picture, which was relevant to the debate, and not an occasion for apology.

    Please withdraw the allegation that I am not an honest and decent person.


Advertisement