It’s pretty much absurd what you’re arguing obsrvr.
The constitution let no women vote and defined blacks as 3/5ths of a person. Actually it went even further and defined people who could vote as white, male property owners.
What side are you on?
All of those issues went to the US Supreme Court long ago and were corrected. What does any of that have to do with the separation of church and state? Nothing.
I feel the door swings both ways. They are one and the same. Any relationship with a god is first and foremost a personal one, and is one of belief which is not synonymous with truth, often beliefs bare little resemblance to truth.
To compare the originally adopted pledge of allegiance and it’s wording to the currently adopted phrasing does demonstrate some historical evolution. But Religion, and therefore Any God, getting wrapped up into any political ceremony or governmental practice is not an example of a separation of church and state.
Abrahamic religions trace their roots back to a common historical figure. Yet each of the three have used a different name for their deity. For christians it is “God” for Judaism it is YHWH and to Islam it is Allah. Are these the names of different deities? Of different deities, they appear to have evolved into quite distinctive practices and do not consider them to be the same deity. To mention endorse one over the other does appear to be the demonstration of a bias for one religion over another. It is interesting to note that the indigenous inhabitants of the land upon which this nation occupies held polytheistic beliefs.
So yeah there is quite a trove of observable evidence the religious right has and continues to hold great influence over both of our currently dominant political parties. Held influence over past political parties and violates a foundation of a country based on a separation of church and state. But a good majority of our population does practice some form of organized religion and that will exert it’s influence.
Your OP on the separation of church and state was ill formed and randomly supported with a fair degree of unsubstantiated opinion. And is a far more complicated issue then you eluded too, with your example of a single current affair regardless the mainstream media coverage.
It an issue being ramrodded down all of America in the taking advantage of circumstance. Truth has been around for a long long time we are just now beginning to discover it. There is no rush, unless perhaps it is opportunity for agenda’s to be served.
On a post note. I find your sig rather Orwellian in itself, Big brother represented in it’s singular individualistic example of ignorance playing the authority and attempting to dictate what is true. Fascist Dictators do that too. So too do bullies.
“We the People” don’t. This nation’s founders didn’t either. well, yeah, they did but they were intent on the pursuit of something closer to perfection.
The obstacle faced is it doesn’t look the same between us. Yeah, I’m still thinking the Supreme Court of the land has some say in the matter.
Note the shift from religion to the relationship with God. Those are not the same category, the latter generally, but not always, a tiny subset of the former. Religions are extremely social phenomena, even the most secular of religions - certain strands of Buddhism - still notice that meditation improves in the presence of other meditators and in dynamic interactions with masters. Religions bind families, but also bind beyond family, creating values to unify people (and also to unify them against others). This can all be for good or ill, but religions is absolutely not a private matter only for most people.
That is an issue of the common language at the time - English (“God”). Should they rewrite the entire thing in Chinese? It might well be going there anyway. How about Chairman Mao’s picture on the dollar. Will that satisfy you?
Marxist whining - “I want it MY way! I want it MY way! I want it MY way!”
Obsessed and scared of the boogeyman word - “God”.
I don’t think anyone was ramming anything until the Marxists tried to take over and ram their way. That is what started the whole divisiveness issue - trying to subvert half of their population - but got caught. And look what they got for it - Donald J Trump. Now look at the whine.
Geniuses they are not.
And as far as my sig is concerned - I didn’t say by whom. There are people behind all of those cameras and search engines. Most are your Marxist comrades. They don’t watch you because they like your smile and poetic rhetoric.
I said it was primarily a matter between a god and a believer. I was baptized a catholic before I had a choice, I was confirmed a catholic before I had a grasp of what is scientifically observable. That is the culture of religion, some just don’t ever exercise a choice. I was fortunate enough to be able to. The evaluation of the truth or the lie is a personal one. Does everyone question to the same depth? Do some question more then others? Do some not question at all?
So I do distinguish there are individual differences which is why I said a belief in a god is primarily a concern between the believer and their god.
The catholic faith requires the individual to accept Jesus as savior. That must be an individuals choice from my understanding. Islam requires similar individual confirmations as does Judaism. It is each religions emphasis on individual confirmation to which the comment was directed. Do religions operate socially, culturally and politically? Damn straight. When people work together they generally get more done, be it meditation or working on a chain gang.
But this was a country founded on the separation of church and state. Yet it no longer practices it. And that is plainly observable in it’s political and judicial ceremony.
I am not sorry to challenge your bias.
I’m am sure you are aware that many proper names do not have direct translations between languages. While the romance languages share many common traits languages that developed in isolation aren’t the same. The Spanish language has no translation for the proper name Pepsi. They use the English name. So my question is… Is God a proper name, is YHWH a proper name, is Allah a proper name. Proper names do not have direct translations the closest they come is an interpretation that this word in this language has a similar meaning to that word in that language but then we aren’t speaking of proper names, just the role they play in the game like Carpenter as a proper name comes from the activity of carpentry.
Look to the region where the deity emerged and you will find they are proper names for what are considered distinct entities by the people that named them.
You really don’t grasp the difference?
How about currency that has as it’s only designations it’s value in the market and the country that backs it. That would be satisfying.
Yes there are, you think they are Marxists? LOL, those that be watching are the capitalists. The profiteers of commercialism, The advertisers of the perfect product that you just have to try. Cause… in Trumps words, it’s perfect.
Are you and me “We the People”? Or do you reserve “We the People” just for your click.
I was born here, and before I had any choice in the matter I was citizenized. Most of the rhetoric didn’t stick but the exploration of the ideology presented by our founding fathers did. Every time I read the preamble to the constitution I well up with an emotion similar to love.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
How many more times are you going to attempt to hang a label on me based on your ignorance?
Stick and stones yeah, but names is all you got?
Bully Bully.
“Rock-a-Bye Baby in the treetop. When the wind blows… When the bough breaks… And down will come baby, cradle and all.”
Just keep dreaming.
Show me the evidence don’t sing me a lullaby.
Again you come with nothing but a bully posture to offer?
Bully Bully.
All Trackers
Trackers were found on 90% of web sites you’ve visited since Sun Oct 04 2020.
Google 87%
Adobe 7%
Chartbeat 6%
comScore 6%
Segment.io 6%
Index Exchange 6%
The Nielsen Company 6%
Bounce Exchange 6%
Outbrain 6%
Integral Ad Science 6%
Data.
Is Google the Chinese government? You are so ignorant it is seeping and oozing from every one of your posts. Yet your method is consistent.
Trace Route the domains if you are so savvy. Prove your claim.
Bully Bully.
You did not answer the question.
Are “we” the people or do you reserve that for your click?
I really don’t know what you thought any of that was supposed to prove (suspect it has a great deal to do with your own ignorance). But I’m curious about something else…
What do you mean when you say “Bully Bully”?
Where I come from that is a cheer like “Hurrah Hurrah” for encouragement.
If you are talking about your constitution, I assume the “we” are the US citizens (I hope so anyway). So no, I am not a Joe Biden fan.
I have observed you. It ain’t google or the Chinese.
Since you seem to be oblivious to the fact, my reference to “observer” has to do with the 10’s of thousands of people payed to observe boards like these and feed categorized observations into only god knows what kind of public surveillance hierarchy. I am a former employee. My sig is a wake up call.
If “milktoast commie whining for the Mommy State” was a category I’m sure there would be quite a lot of attention being paid to this board.
I am assuming you are responding to me, here. The evaluation of what is true or not is not the religion. You were discussing with Observer about freedom of religion. Religion is not just a private epistemological question. It seemed to like the context was whether one should keep one’s religion and opinions about religion private. To call religions just that choice of belief is to cut religions down to some very small part of what they are and entail.
This is a separate issue. But perhaps you are not responding to me here.
I don’t think they ever fully did. I would guess people were swearing on Bibles back at the begining in court and that Christianity and Christian symbols appeared all over the place and not just on money, then.
Again, no idea if you are responding to me, but personally I am extremely in favor of separation of Church and State.
During any period of formation of a sizable state, religion plays a critical role and is inseparable from that formation. Typically the rulers of the state, those who establish its laws, believe their acquisition of property, wealth and power is due to divine edict, fate, pre-destination, etc. The elite always had a few philosophers on hand to ‘explain’ why the elite had the right and deserved the privilege of rule.
So the states first and most important role was to enforce and protect the property rights of its wealthiest few.
Thousands of years later this institution remains, and moderns live as if this system is taken for granted. It’s existed for so long nobody dares to question it.
Conservatism is the anachronistic residual echo of that carefully manufactured original lie told thousands of years ago.
The right to own property isn’t a matter of religion in the US. It is a part of their laws and capitalism as an economy. Conservatives try to conserve the legal system, not merely some religious system - society as a whole.
“right to own property isn’t a matter of religion in the US.”
Believe it or not there are evangelical christian scholars who would probably base the entire foundation of their concept of property rights on a few passages from the bible. Unimportant though. What’s important is to recognize how certain kinds of property relations in the oldest of societies involved class and caste divisions that were justified and rationalized by attributing the structure of those relations to the purposeful will of some divine being(s). These originally ultra-explotative relations seemed entirely unnatural to those of the lower castes and classes, and only a dazzling supernatural justification for what seemed so asinine to the ordinary people would work to appease them.
The reason why shamans and theologians are so close to the chiefs and kings is because they produce the memetic propaganda necessary to cull the lower castes and classes.
If you watch a primitive society develop over a time lapse as it accumulates surplus material wealth, you’ll see a class emerge that takes individual possession of that surplus wealth without participating in its production.
This gradually intensified process creates that conflict between the castes and classes that can only be rationalized with theological and/or metaphysical explanation. There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that taking and defending property is anything more than a display of brute force… so you’d not convince a mob of peasants to stop revolting with some falsifiable inductive argument. No, you’d have to ultimately resort to saying that the order of the state reflects the divine order of the cosmos, and that the current property laws reflect actual rights that weren’t just made up for the convenience of the wealthy.
The rest is history. I imagine the only major change to this order would be the elimination of private business ownership, or the mass expansion of the size or corporations in which the workers more directly participate. Watch a few videos of wolff in youtube and he’ll sort you out.
Really, now, the origins of how the current order of things happened, is irrelevant. I mean it’s interesting for the sociological perspective, but not really important. What’s important is to recognize the kind of problem the current order is creating en masse… not those stupid little problems like racism and sexual identify politics and feminism and the fookin queers. The kind of problem is financial. It has everything to do with how much money people get, and spend, for and when, doing x and y. The actual problem is incredibly simple. But the answer(s) is as complex as it is numerous, and every solution yields its own new difficulties.
“If you are talking about your constitution, I assume the “we” are the US citizens”
Seeing as is ain’t your constitution…
I’m not endorsing that religions beliefs be restricted in any way other then to preclude their mixing with the politics of the State, including any notion of military defense or aggression.
“We The People” sounds like a fairly communistic way to begin a preamble to the formation of a constitutional republic. Communism is a two class system where the working class has no real voice in how a country is run. Sounds remarkably similar to what the Republicans are trying to accomplish. Same result, does it matter what it is called? That’s irony.