Here we go...

[beeliner]

1. The way I understand it, separation of state and religion means there will be no State or National religion, but all Religions and freedom of conscience will be protected by the Federal Government.
2. Where it gets sticky and may get stickier is if the Federal or State government is in charge of saying what is moral and immoral in a denomination, or Church, such as the polygamy uproar in Az.
3. I don’t condone polygamy, but what else could our government condemn regarding the stances of religions. Such as not allowing some pastors/ministers to condemn actions which are immoral such as active homosexuality, homosexual marriage etc.

1. That is exactly what it means in the USA.
2. But here you go astray. The federal government makes no judgment whatever on its morality, only its legality. Even the Mormon Church, as I understand it, does not consider polygamy immoral per se, only currently proscribed by the Church, a ban that, at least theoretically, might some day be reversed. Also, I’m not sure that even Catholicism regards many of the Bibllical instances of polygamy as immoral, only contrary to Catholic teaching, which of course, did not exist in OT times.
3. And here even further astray. First of all, not everyone considers the things you mention to be immoral. Also, you omit the most obvious example, abortion. Abortion will remain legal and various churches - not all - will continue to condemn it. To prohibit them from doing so would be an outrageous afront to both freedom of speech and religion. But, as with nearly everything else in life, there are limits. Clergy, or for that matter laity, may not incite violence against participants in abortion, homosexuals, etc. That ‘crosses the line’ of constitutional freedom.

 

[JonNC]

=beeliner;6045842]Oh, c’mon, if you can’t do any better than that, hang it up! “without constitutional mandate” is a ‘phrase of art’, like ‘divinely inspired’. It can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Where does the Constitution say that the central government has the power to institute a system of education? The 10th amendment says for the government to have that power, the Constitution must say it has that power. It is the very notion that “constitutional mandate” is simply a “phrase of art” which allows the government to increase its power, and increased government power is always at the expense of individual liberty and rights.

‘Walter Williams’ is a very common name. If you mean the conservative commentator, he has a BACHELOR’S degree in economics, as do MILLIONS of the rest of us. What is he a DOCTOR of?

Sorry, Walter Williams is a professor of economics at Gearge Mason University, which probably requires more than a bachelor’s degree.

In any case, how are ANY of the things you mentioned UNconstitutional, that is how do they VIOLATE the constitution?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There was an election in 2008

.
Elections are irrelevent when it comes to the limits of federal power, or they used to be when we actually followed the document.

Your side LOST - decisively.

By my side, you must mean the side that believes the US Constitution, in limited government, and therefore liberty. You are correct, and sadly, we have been for decades.

Jon

 

[beeliner]

1. Where does the Constitution say that the central government has the power to institute a system of education? The 10th amendment says for the government to have that power, the Constitution must say it has that power. It is the very notion that “constitutional mandate” is simply a “phrase of art” which allows the government to increase its power, and increased government power is always at the expense of individual liberty and rights.
2. Sorry, Walter Williams is a professor of economics at Gearge Mason University, which probably requires more than a bachelor’s degree.
3. Elections are irrelevent when it comes to the limits of federal power, or they used to be when we actually followed the document…By my side, you must mean the side that believes the US Constitution, in limited government, and therefore liberty. You are correct, and sadly, we have been for decades.

Jon

1. To my knowledge, nowhere, nor am I aware that the central goverment has done or is planning to do that. The 1st amendemnt states that no establishment of religion may be respected and no state law may override that.
2. Agreed. Not the person I was referring to. As I said, it’s a fairly common name.
3. If that is your mindset, further discussion is unlikely to be productive or even interesting. You and others of your stripe should start a new party with that as your central theme, run candidates, and see how many votes you get. I have no doubt that there are many who agree with you.

 

[JonNC]

=beeliner;6046929]1. To my knowledge, nowhere, nor am I aware that the central goverment has done or is planning to do that. The 1st amendemnt states that no establishment of religion may be respected and no state law may override that.

On this we agree.

1. If that is your mindset, further discussion is unlikely to be productive or even interesting. You and others of your stripe should start a new party with that as your central theme, run candidates, and see how many votes you get. I have no doubt that there are many who agree with you.

You are probably right. The position I hold, which I believe was that of the founders, is nolonger held by many Americans. As the saying goes, most Americans are willing to give up liberty for security. I suspect, however, that, again as the old saying goes, they will get neither. I pray, for my childrens’ sake, that I am wrong.

Jon

 

[beeliner]

The position I hold, which I believe was that of the founders, is no longer held by many Americans. As the saying goes, most Americans are willing to give up liberty for security. I suspect, however, that, again as the old saying goes, they will get neither. I pray, for my childrens’ sake, that I am wrong.

Jon

Well, I have grown children, grandchildren, and if the Lord grants me a few more years on this earth I expect to have great-grandchildren. I don’t see any on them being oppressed, nor in danger of being oppressed by the federal government of the USA, nor did I see any such oppression in any of the three European countries in which I have lived.

I see oppression like that mainly in theocratic countries, which the religious right, including, most unfortunately, some Catholics, wishes the USA to become.

 

[JonNC]

Well, I have grown children, grandchildren, and if the Lord grants me a few more years on this earth I expect to have great-grandchildren. I don’t see any on them being oppressed, nor in danger of being oppressed by the federal government of the USA, nor did I see any such oppression in any of the three European countries in which I have lived.

I see oppression like that mainly in theocratic countries, which the religious right, including, most unfortunately, some Catholics, wishes the USA to become.

Well, I do fear the oppression of socialism, but I again agree with you that we do not need, nor is it desirable to have a theocratic form of government, even if the theology is secular humanism or atheism. We must protect individaul liberty regarding religious expression, and prevent the establishment of a state church.

Jon

 

[beeliner]

1. Well, I do fear the oppression of socialism,
2. …but I again agree with you that we do not need, nor is it desirable to have a theocratic form of government, even if the theology is secular humanism or atheism. Jon

1. Well, taking them in reverse order, referring to ‘the theocracy [of] secular humanism or atheism’ is ridiculous. Theocracy, by definition, involves a supreme being. Neither secular humanism nor atheism acknowledge a supreme being. Some advocates of those beliefs may adhere to a credo or philosophy of life of some sort, but such beliefs are not theocratic.
2. Nonsense! I lived in a socialist country for over eight years, the Federal Republic of Germany. Tell me how you think I was oppressed there, or how my children would have been!

 

[JonNC]

1. Well, taking them in reverse order, referring to ‘the theocracy [of] secular humanism or atheism’ is ridiculous. Theocracy, by definition, involves a supreme being. Neither secular humanism nor atheism acknowledge a supreme being. Some advocates of those beliefs may adhere to a credo or philosophy of life of some sort, but such beliefs are not theocratic.
2. Nonsense! I lived in a socialist country for over eight years, the Federal Republic of Germany. Tell me how you think I was oppressed there, or how my children would have been!

1. Of course I was speaking figuratively. I am quite aware that atheists recognize no diety. But in their belief system they often act in a way the mimics a religious faith. So again, in power, it is possible they would try to impose their beliefs in a way similar to theocracy.
2. The right to property is not nonsense. Government control of the means of production is, by nature, oppression. There are people that are quite happy to live with the lower standard of living it always produces, but I would not wish it on my family.

We seem to have different views of freedom, which is fine. So, as you said, anything productive or interesting probably will not come from further discussion, and I certainly wouldn’t wish our dialogue to devolve.

Blessings to you,
Jon

 

[beeliner]

1. Of course I was speaking figuratively. I am quite aware that atheists recognize no diety. But in their belief system they often act in a way the mimics a religious faith. So again, in power, it is possible they would try to impose their beliefs in a way similar to theocracy.
2. The right to property is not nonsense. Government control of the means of production is, by nature, oppression. There are people that are quite happy to live with the lower standard of living it always produces, but I would not wish it on my family.

We seem to have different views of freedom, which is fine. So, as you said, anything productive or interesting probably will not come from further discussion, and I certainly wouldn’t wish our dialogue to devolve.

Blessings to you,
Jon

1. Well, I don’t know how many atheists you know personally. I know lots of them, I can’t think of ONE whose belief system mimics religion, quite the opposite. Most of them are moral, ethical individuals, but for those virtures’ own sakes, not from obedience to a deity.
2. Modern European socialism neither denies nor abridges the right to private property. Rather, the society, not the individual, is considered the basic unit.

American capitalism, by contrast, is based entirely on greed, one of deadliest of sins. Parasitic bankers making millions and even billions of dollars by victimizing working people while contributing nothing to their society. Shame!

The USA includes millions of unfortunate people, both urban and rural, living in grinding poverty, often for generation after generation, There is no poverty in Germany, in the way it is known in the USA. If one sees derelicts sleeping in doorways, they do so by choice, because they prefer substance abuse to a productive life. In America’s urban ghettos there is little choice, especially for children.

I love my native USA, but not its economic system. Any movement in the direction of European socialism can result in nothing but good for the American worker. Lower standard of living for the worker? Hardly!

Hopefully the current disintegration of the once-great Republican party into a gang of losers, loonies and louts will result in its replacement by a new party of RESPONSIBLE conservatism.

But hey, I certainly respect your right to disagree, and you have defended your position with courtesy and civility! I’ve enjoyed the exchange.

 

[peary1]

Originally Posted by beeliner
2. Well, taking them in reverse order, referring to ‘the theocracy [of] secular humanism or atheism’ is ridiculous. Theocracy, by definition, involves a supreme being. Neither secular humanism nor atheism acknowledge a supreme being. Some advocates of those beliefs may adhere to a credo or philosophy of life of some sort, but such beliefs are not theocratic.

1. Nonsense! I lived in a socialist country for over eight years, the Federal Republic of Germany. Tell me how you think I was oppressed there, or how my children would have been!

Really, now? Then how do you explain the following story that is making news all across the world?

**AMAZING: JAILED FATHERS FOR REFUSING FORCED SEX ED CLASSES TO THEIR CHILDREN

At least eight Russo-German families in Salzkotten, Germany, have suffered heavy fines and now their fathers have been sentenced to prison, because they have refused to send their elementary school-age children to mandatory sexual education classes.
The International Human Rights Group, a Christian legal defense organization that defends religious liberty and the right to homeschool in Europe, reports that in addition to refusing to allow their children to attend sex-ed classes, the families also resisted having their children enlisted in a theatre production of “Mein Körper gehört mir” or “My Body Belongs to Me,” which informs young children in how to engage in sexual intercourse.

With fines having failed to force the families into compliance, government officials have now sentenced each of the families’ respective fathers to spend a brief time in prison. One father has already spent seven days in jail and was released Friday.

Instead of inflicting ordinary punitive fines on the families, the state has opted to impose a special fine called “Bussgeld,” which IHRG European Director Richard Guenther explains literally means “repentance money” and is “designed to show contrition for a wrong behavior on the part of the person being fined.”

The “Bussgeld” fines are significant, perhaps especially because they put the eight German families in an impossible situation: payment of the fines would imply an admission of guilt, but they believe that they have done nothing wrong.

“This type of persecution from German government officials against the Salzkotten 8 shows how committed the German system is to punishing home school families and others who do not comply with the compulsory education laws,” said IHRG President Joel Thornton, “even when they are only removing their children from a single clearly objectionable class.”

Thornton states that unlike much of the American education system, German officials “view the children as belonging to the State, particularly during the time they are in school” and for that reason parents’ beliefs and authority over their children takes second place to the interests and mandates of the State.

Attorneys Gabriele and Armin Eckermann of the German homeschooling advocacy group SchuzH have intervened with IHRG to represent the Salzkotten 8…

The Youth Welfare Office or Jugendamt - an institution similar to Child Protective Services - acts as the government’s chief intervening instrument, and when prison and fines do not bend Christian families into compliance, they recommend that these Christians lose parental custody of their children.
In one case, the Jugendamt, accompanied by 15 heavily armed police, forcibly seized 15 year-old Melissa Busekros in the dead of night from her family in 2007 against her will. However, legal intervention ensured that Busekros was legally permitted to return to her family upon turning 16.

IHRG is currently representing Hans and Petra Schmidt, who are faced with a similar situation. They are fighting the state to retain custody of their 14-year-old son Aaron, who is homeschooled. The Schmidts so far have been fined 13,000 Euros (US $19,000) in home-schooling fines and have had a lien placed on their home by the government.

Some homeschooling families have fled the country, either into neighboring Austria or abroad. German homeschooling parents Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their family fled into the United States last November demanding asylum, a move that finally brought the attention of Germany’s media to the extreme situation faced by its estimated 300-500 homeschooling families.**

 

[historyb]

How do you (anyone) feel about a church and state government?

In a perfect world I would not mind a Catholic Monarchy

 

[beeliner]

Really, now? Then how do you explain the following story that is making news all across the world?.

It may be ‘making news all across the world’, but it certainly hasn’t reached Champaign, Illinois.

When quoting something of this nature, it is customary to give the source. Please do so and I will comment.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Religion and government are to remain separate. The government should not endorse any religion by displays of religious icons, statues, symbols or scenes.

Our country was founded upon a “Utopian Experiment” who’s founders happend to be Christian…at least marginally…many were Diests and subscribed to Thomas Paine’s views. Read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Religions should be able to practice their religious beliefs unless it conflicts with the law of the land…then that group must decide if they wish to engage in civil disobedience and face whatever consequences are met out by the law. The government should not restrict the free expression of religious beliefs…but not allow religious beliefs to trump the rule of law. We are governed by a secular government…not a religious one.

We are not a “Christian nation” we are a nation founded by Christians.

If that, most of the founding fathers were deists rather than Christian. Most went to church for business and social reasons rather than religious.

 

[fbl9]

In a perfect world I would not mind a Catholic Monarchy

…but alas we are human and thus imperfect as history has proved time and time again.

 

[historyb]

tis true

 

[elts1956]

1. That is exactly what it means in the USA.
2. But here you go astray. The federal government makes no judgment whatever on its morality, only its legality. Even the Mormon Church, as I understand it, does not consider polygamy immoral per se, only currently proscribed by the Church, a ban that, at least theoretically, might some day be reversed. Also, I’m not sure that even Catholicism regards many of the Bibllical instances of polygamy as immoral, only contrary to Catholic teaching, which of course, did not exist in OT times.
3. And here even further astray. First of all, not everyone considers the things you mention to be immoral. Also, you omit the most obvious example, abortion. Abortion will remain legal and various churches - not all - will continue to condemn it. To prohibit them from doing so would be an outrageous afront to both freedom of speech and religion. But, as with nearly everything else in life, there are limits. Clergy, or for that matter laity, may not incite violence against participants in abortion, homosexuals, etc. That ‘crosses the line’ of constitutional freedom.

“First of all, not everyone considers the things you mention to be immoral”. That in itself is a tragedy. The sinfulness that abounds today has to do not only with secular law, but God’s law. We will reap what we sow.

Does that also mean homosexuals, abortion supporters etc. may not incite violence? I see little being done to curb these groups. Also was there not a “hate crime bill” (have forgotten the specific name) just passed that makes it unlawful for anyone to denigrate homosexuals, abortionists either publicly, or in church? I would imagine if a pastor, or minister said that homosexuals (active ones) are deviant he could get into a humongous amount of trouble.

You forget the tax exempt bru ha ha that most Christian Churches seem to feel is absolutely needed. Therefore no obvious political support of specific parties, or individuals are permitted by, or in a church. But I think the Churches have created their own problems in this by accepting tax exempt status.

 

[elts1956]

If that, most of the founding fathers were deists rather than Christian. Most went to church for business and social reasons rather than religious.

And I believe that is still true today.

 

[beeliner]

Really, now? Then how do you explain the following story that is making news all across the world?]

I extended poster peary1 the courtesy of waiting a couple of days for him/her to post identify the source of the link and so far s/he has not done so.

I was able to google several phrases, mainly the proper names, from the quoted material and will comment only briefly… I cannot claim that the matter is beyond the subject of the thread, because a thread titled 'Here we go" leaves considerable latitude for discussion. So, as I said, I will make only a few brief observations, and of course, poster peary1 is welcome to respond:

1. I found SCORES - possibly hundreds - of links to the material quoted. EVERY SINGLE one of them was to a home-schooling advocacy or fundamentalist religious website. I found no mention of these incidents in any sort of general news website, either in English or German. So that is hardly ‘making news all over the world’.
2. Germany, like the USA, requires that children be educated, either at a public school or an accredited private or parochial school. If the children of the families in Salzkotten are being oppressed, it seems to me that the oppressors are their parents, who refuse to send the children to school.

Sex education is certainly part of school curicula all over the world, as it should be. If the parents do not like the way the subject is being handled in German public schools, there are extensive systems of both Roman Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran parochial schools available.

1. Also, Americans should understand that Germany does not share America’s puritan heritage. Sexual matters are very open there. With regard to ‘inform[ing] young children how to engage in sexual intercourse’, one assumes that such information is appropriate to the age of the child.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I received such information at a very young age, from my peers, most of it confusing or erroneous. Better it should have been presented in school.

1. With regard to Melissa Busekros, she was a chronic truant, her parents failed to see that she attended school, she was arrested as a last resort. The young lady is now an adult so her case is moot. In the several accounts that I read of her history, there was no mention of home-schooling or sex education as factors.

Home-schooling, as far as I know, is illegal in Germany, and will hopefully remain so. It should be illegal in the USA too, except in unusual circumstances. I am especially surprised to see its advocacy on a Catholic discussion board, considering the excellence of the Catholic school system.

I am not sure, though, what any of this has to do with the relative merits and demerits of Socialism vs. Capitalism.

 

[beeliner]

“First of all, not everyone considers the things you mention to be immoral”. That in itself is a tragedy. The sinfulness that abounds today has to do not only with secular law, but God’s law. We will reap what we sow.

Does that also mean homosexuals, abortion supporters etc. may not incite violence? I see little being done to curb these groups. Also was there not a “hate crime bill” (have forgotten the specific name) just passed that makes it unlawful for anyone to denigrate homosexuals, abortionists either publicly, or in church? I would imagine if a pastor, or minister said that homosexuals (active ones) are deviant he could get into a humongous amount of trouble.

You forget the tax exempt bru ha ha that most Christian Churches seem to feel is absolutely needed. Therefore no obvious political support of specific parties, or individuals are permitted by, or in a church. But I think the Churches have created their own problems in this by accepting tax exempt status.

elts, I did not respond earlier simply because it is a waste of web space to repeat oneself.

I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. Surely you understand the difference between ‘I believe that homosexuals are deviant’ and 'Let’s all go out and beat up some homosexuals."

Don’t you? Of course you do.

 

[elts1956]

elts, I did not respond earlier simply because it is a waste of web space to repeat oneself.

I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. Surely you understand the difference between ‘I believe that homosexuals are deviant’ and 'Let’s all go out and beat up some homosexuals."

Don’t you? Of course you do.

Thanks for assuming I’m intelligent. Homosexuals and deviant behavior of homosexuals are two different aspects. What I am sure of is that there are fanatics on both sides of the sidewalk who think nothing of beating up anyone crossing the street.