Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
And please, please read about the history of the 1st amendment and the establishment clause. Read about the founder's attitude towards the C of E and organized religion in general and how they never wanted history to repeat with entrenched religious doctrine dictating it's morality to government. Check out the Treaty of Tripoli while you're at it. The federal government has strived from the beginning to be fiercely secular, it's just a fact. There is no distinction, freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religion. Stop embarrassing yourself.
-
James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law of the new nation. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions," he wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, "may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"
-
★fnord★ wrote:
I've been correcting you from the beginning. You always type these long drawn out post instead of backing up your opinion with fact. Give me the paragraph and article of the constitution that defines a seperation of church and state. Not your opinion.And please, please read about the history of the 1st amendment and the establishment clause. Read about the founder's attitude towards the C of E and organized religion in general and how they never wanted history to repeat with entrenched religious doctrine dictating it's morality to government. Check out the Treaty of Tripoli while you're at it. The federal government has strived from the beginning to be fiercely secular, it's just a fact. There is no distinction, freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religion. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Way to agree with me on C of E but let's stay on topic.
Another liberal wet dream,That the 1st amendment establishes a freedom FROM religion. -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I'm sorry those don't count? It didn't fit into your absolute claim so they don't count?! Hahahah. And yes, when you overwhelming majority is stifling basic human rights your damned right they should be. With your "logic" we'd still have slavery in this country too.★Λddi★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
You mean aside from Maine, Maryland and Washington during the nov 2012 elections?Just a quick point Addi: any time it's been put to a ballot, it's been voted down. The people haven't asked, shown support, or voted for same sex marriage. Every time it's an activist panel or single judge.
Well, those don't count. What about the places where it was voted down? Should the overwhelming majority be silenced to appease a minority?
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Clearly when you review history you cherry pick what you think supports your position. Your statement of "entrenched religious doctrine dictating it's morality to government" is an interesting one. Please elaborate on "entrenched religious doctrine dictating it's morality to government" and how the 1st amendment protects the ..... Government..from religion.... Wow.And please, please read about the history of the 1st amendment and the establishment clause. Read about the founder's attitude towards the C of E and organized religion in general and how they never wanted history to repeat with entrenched religious doctrine dictating it's morality to government. There is no distinction, freedom OF religion IS freedom FROM religion. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You slide in there "and organized religion in general" again, your opinion not supported or found anywhere by the framers. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
He already did and so did I. Apparently you can not read or will not read entire explanations or pointed to doctrine. TooLongForUndertow.★fnord★ wrote:
I've been correcting you from the beginning. You always type these long drawn out post instead of backing up your opinion with fact. Give me the paragraph and article of the constitution that defines a seperation of church and state. Not your opinion..
Way to agree with me on C of E but let's stay on topic.
.How about this since it's you that wants to disprove the basic founding of our country. You prove that church in state go hand in hand. Come on cite yourself. Use facts. I haven't seen anything of that nature from you yet. Please enlighten me so that I can reconcile with myself that our government is indeed meant to be on the backs of Christianity.
-
Undertow-
The founders understood all to well the dangers of a state religion. Read up. Madison initially went to university with the intent to enter the ministry. While studying he came to see the church as indistinguishable from the government. In other words the government used the church to sanctify their edicts and the church used the government to enforce its doctrine.
No sane person wants this. If you do I suggest Iran.
-
You're confused, Undertow. The establishment clause does not protect the government from religion as you say, it protects the people from a government influenced by religion. Like Addi said, I've made my case as far as I feel I can in this forum where too many word just confuse and confound you. Research for yourself my assertions and you'll find vast evidence supporting them. It's not my job to educate you. Now, make your case that this country was founded with a specific religious mandate. I honestly want to know how you arrived at this opinion.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
I'm not tauting my opinion as facts and then weaving it into factual events or other topics. Thats you and your boy. When you try and pass your opinion off as fact be prepared to back those facts up. Obviously you both cant.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
He already did and so did I. Apparently you can not read or will not read entire explanations or pointed to doctrine. TooLongForUndertow.★fnord★ wrote:
Way to agree with me on C of E but let's stay on topic..
.How about this since it's you that wants to disprove the basic founding of our country. You prove that church in state go hand in hand. Come on cite yourself. Use facts. I haven't seen anything of that nature from you yet. Please enlighten me so that I can reconcile with myself that our government is indeed meant to be on the backs of Christianity.
-
Oarsman wrote:
Please don't be confused by their flip flopping posts. I'm not for any government sponsored or mandate religion. Fnord&addi pretend that the 1st A establishes a seperation of C&S in the case of DD and Phil. It's not accurate. Flip back and you will see that they have a pattern of talking in circles on a multitude of attempts to change the topic. They have managed to switch it to seperation of C & S now. It's their strategy to argue in circles and try and trip up the other person. By accusing me of having or taking a position on marriage, to defending phil. It's bizzar.Undertow-
The founders understood all to well the dangers of a state religion.
No sane person wants this. If you do I suggest Iran.
-
This thread suddenly took a sharp turn.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You're not even defending a position. You're merely rah rah rahing for your team.Oarsman wrote:
Please don't be confused by their flip flopping posts. I'm not for any government sponsored or mandate religion. Fnord&addi pretend that the 1st A establishes a seperation of C&S in the case of DD and Phil. It's not accurate. Flip back and you will see that they have a pattern of talking in circles on a multitude of attempts to change the topic. They have managed to switch it to seperation of C & S now. It's their strategy to argue in circles and try and trip up the other person. By accusing me of having or taking a position on marriage, to defending phil. It's bizzar.Undertow-
The founders understood all to well the dangers of a state religion.
No sane person wants this. If you do I suggest Iran.
-
Start from the beginning or even around page 4
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
No one said that the constitution applies directly to Phil and DD. You chose to fixate on 5 words that granted, are not specifically in the constitution. The concept, however, is deeply rooted in our founding principles. Prove the founding intent was otherwise or move on. At least make a point other than ranting about liberal patterns of behavior. No one is attempting to change the subject but you.Oarsman wrote:
✂️Fnord&addi pretend that the 1st A establishes a seperation of C&S in the case of DD and Phil. It's not accurate. Flip back and you will see that they have a pattern of talking in circles on a multitude of attempts to change the topic. They have managed to switch it to seperation of C & S now. ✂️Undertow-
The founders understood all to well the dangers of a state religion.
No sane person wants this. If you do I suggest Iran.
-
Well this thread went sideways
-
Gay people do have the ability to marry, They just dont have the ability to change the definition of marriage. If a gay man wants to marry a woman then fine. If two dudes want to be together and call it marriage then thats where they cross the line.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Its funny that you dont quote the whole passage.It's abundantly clear that the intent of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution is to separate church and state.
"Believing with you that religion"
-Thomas Jefferson 1780
This was said six years
Wh
"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 & esteem."
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
It's just a word. Why don't you just change your word instead. Call your church wedding "holy matrimony" or something. Call any other secular union "marriage" because that's what it is. My marriage is not defined by your religion either so does that mean I'm not married?Gay people do have the ability to marry, They just dont have the ability to change the definition of marriage. If a gay man wants to marry a woman then fine. If two dudes want to be together and call it marriage then thats where they cross the line.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Well that doesnt make any logical sense. If its a word, and if words have meaning then i do believe we still can have a world of logic that follows definitions especially to its origin. Marriage isnt defined by the secular state because it assumes "fundamentals" you cant account for. with the assumption that God can not exist, why be married in the first place? You share the amazing qualities that God has ordained. Yes you are free do fullfill the lusts of your flesh as you want, but mere subjective opinions dont establish truth. Your rendering of "marriage" is a false induction since its assumes foundations you havent yet begin to explain.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
It's just a word. Why don't "marriage" because -
Ha! So you don't think marriage exists in all those places outside your narrow Christian viewpoint? That's just plain crazy talk.
-
Your notion that your marriage has more validity than mine is just more good old Christian bigotry.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Oh yeah i forgot. You dont have a logical response to anything i have to say. Ill save my breath for the one who knows how to speak coherently and reflectively.Ha! So you don't think marriage exists in all those places outside your narrow Christian viewpoint? That's just plain crazy talk.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Your notion that your marriage has more validity than mine is just more good old Christian bigotry.
Welp folks here goes the anti christian strawman. Oji, why cant you have a conversation without causing fallacies on your position?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
^ like Dr James White always says, "inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument." Nothing to see here folks!Your notion that your marriage has more validity than mine is just more good old Christian bigotry.
-
ʟɛx тooтʜɛʀ™ wrote:
Out of everybody you actually chose to show some evidence and I appreciate that. He was just stating an opinion. America should take a chill pill.Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person who is or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverbDoesn't seem to me he is a bigot. He just stated his view on things. People need to relax.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
LolOjibwe wrote:
Oh yeah i forgot. You dont have a logical response to anything i have to say. Ill save my breath for the one who knows how to speak coherently and reflectively.Ha! So you don't think marriage exists in all those places outside your narrow Christian viewpoint? That's just plain crazy talk.
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Ojibwe don't know anythingOjibwe wrote:
Your notion that your marriage has more validity than mine is just more good old Christian bigotry.
Welp folks here goes the anti christian strawman. Oji, why cant you have a conversation without causing fallacies on your position?
-
Johnny Mac wrote:
Your bigotry is showing.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Ojibwe don't know anythingOjibwe wrote:
Your notion that your marriage has more validity than mine is just more good old Christian bigotry.
Welp folks here goes the anti christian strawman. Oji, why cant you have a conversation without causing fallacies on your position?
-
Ducks are best served in Peking.
-
Excessive use of the words fallacy (phallus-see) and positions in a conversation about homosexuality. No wonder everyone's so heated up.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC