Myth of Separation of Church & State: Part 2

by ourchristiancountry on November 30, 2009


Deals with the secularist myth of the so-called separation of church and state. I deal with Justice Joseph Story’s commentary on the Constitution as well as with the unprecedented take in Everson.

Tagged as: , , , ,

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

webmaster2089 December 1, 2009 at 2:06 AM

what’s wrong with the pledge of allegiance is that “under god” was added to it in the fifties. and students have plenty of time to voluntarily pray already, and we can’t afford to waste school time.

Reply

girzwald3 December 1, 2009 at 1:46 AM

Actually, its you who doesn’t have a grip on what evolution is. Pick up a dictionary once in a while.

And I love when people like you say something like that about the bible. Cause i KNOW that you haven’t read the bible. All you’ve heard is that same narrative and passages repeated and out of context. But go ahead, point to a place in the bible where GOD says its ok to be racist or he is racist. And sorry, wiping out a city/nation because they were wicked…is not racist.

Reply

webmaster2089 December 1, 2009 at 1:36 AM

actually i have read the bible. i can’t quote you any specific passages because i haven’t bothered to memorize it, but it’s pointless anyway. it’s a logical fallacy to say that because someone was racist they were wrong. i believe that’s an ad hominem but don’t quote me on that.

and what basis do you have to say that i don’t know about evolution. i actually just finished reading the origin of species last week. nowhere in it does it say animals evolved, but for some reason humans didn’t.

Reply

girzwald3 December 1, 2009 at 1:32 AM

ht tp: //dictionary(dot)reference(dot)com/browse/evolution

17….count them 17 definitions of the word and not one mentioning of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Not till much later in the page to they even bring up Darwin. And its more of an encyclopedia entry than a “definition”

Reply

girzwald3 December 1, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Thats a nice cop out. You make a claim, but cant back it up. Then try to brush it off like it doesn’t matter anyway because the fact that you cant back it up hurts your argument.

Look im really sorry if you cant grasp the concept of the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.

They are 2 separate matters. Evolution is just what happens. They theory of evolution is one mans observation OF evolution and an attempt to explain how we got here.

Reply

girzwald3 December 1, 2009 at 1:16 AM

But anyway, im arguing with a fool. The fact that you cant grasp the distinction between what evolution is. Which is…..change over time. And the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origins of man. Shows your complete lack of cognitive ability and/or lack of understanding of terms.

Id say go ask one of your professors to tell you the difference between the 2, but I doubt a student of Darwin has the intellectual integrity to separate them.

Reply

webmaster2089 December 1, 2009 at 1:12 AM

the fact that i can’t back it up does NOT hurt my argument for the reasons i just stated. if you bothered to read my comment you’d understand. the fact of the matter is that i’d rather not go flipping through a huge book just to prove you wrong. you already know what i’m talking about and so does everyone else. the theory of evolution is hundreds of men’s observations and a generally accepted explanation of how we got here

Reply

webmaster2089 December 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM

yes, one of the general definitons of evolution is change over time, but if you’re under any illusions that that is what we were talking about you’re either and idiot or a liar. we’re talking about the theory of evolution as it pertains to the origin of species including humans. don’t try to red herring the issue by changing topics.

Reply

webmaster2089 December 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM

are you fucking kidding me definition number THREE: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

that is what i am referring to and it is generally accepted. just as the idea that it bought about man is generally accepted. it doesn’t need to include darwin because darwin doesn’t define it. it is now a scientific principle.

Reply

paleocrat November 30, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Two problems with you analysis:

A. You ignore the cultural context and word usage.

B. I am not so much giving my opinion (though it is relatively obvious that I maintain a different position as you) as I am quoting the founders, the original jurists appointed by the writers of the Constitution, various laws, and the authoritative commentary on the Constitution written by Joseph Story.

Historical revisionism? Point out where my quotes are revisionist. Thanks.

Reply

paleocrat November 30, 2009 at 11:28 PM

They would have seen what you refer to as “liberty” as nothing other than “license,” and the distinction ought to be kept in mind.

The majority were Unitarians and Masons. I don’t, as a traditionalist Catholic, have a romanticized view of the founders as examples of orthodox Christians.

Reply

paleocrat November 30, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Institutionally, yes, the Church and State are separate. See, those like you who have a disdain for history, who wish to treat it like a Mr. Potato Head, making of it whatever your whims and fancies would have, grossly misunderstand the controversy.

For the record, If there was no institutional separation of Church and State, it would be called an ecclesiocracy. I do not in any way endorse this. Fault me for being strict on word usage.

Reply

webmaster2089 November 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM

i don’t fault you for the word usage, you are correct, sir. whether you are correcting false ideas about the founders or contorting history yourself, the only end i see in this is the destruction of the barrier between church and state however it exists in its current form, which i can never see as a reasonable goal. personally i think it’s not strong enough. anyway, you’re a much better debater than most on youtube as you’ve probably seen, so thanks for that.

Reply

DatamanMWA1 November 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Paleocrat, your previously stated remarks supporting the traditional exclusion of the irreligious and pagan from oath-taking, while extolling the supposed morally superior Christian testifier is absurd and laughable. Christians lie as often as anyone else, their alleged protestations of moral certitude notwithstanding. To suggest otherwise is patent FALSEHOOD, both documented and anecdotal.
About Christianity being the “Bulwark of Society”-
REALLY!? ALL THE “CHRISTIAN” founders owned slaves!!!

Reply

DatamanMWA1 November 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Paleocrat:Christianity as presently manifested is NOTHING OTHER than the systematic enslavement of all those unfortunately enmeshed within its horrific and ruinous matrix of POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, and MENTAL CONTROL, as well as the OPPRESSION of all who REFUSE entanglement therein.
THE TRULY GOOD PERSON IS ONE WHO IS GOOD
FOR GOOD”S SAKE:
WITHOUT a “god”
‘Nuff Said!!!

Reply

deutschdemon November 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM

“Religion” did not mean “rival denominations.” If the founders wanted to say that in writing…they would have, but they didn’t.

And do you honestly think that atheists and muslims should not be allowed to serve on a jury? That´s pretty scary if you ask me.

Reply

paleocrat November 30, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Your problem isn’t with me. Bring it up with the works of Justice Joseph Story, appointed by a Founding Father. His commentary, which is merely quoted here, was without dispute… until people a few hundred years later thought they knew better.

As for the Muslims and Atheists, this was again Justice Story. It was also part of our earliest laws, state or national. Take it up with them, not me.

One must wonder why nobody balked at Story’s commentary. Why is this? The answer is simple really…

Reply

paleocrat November 30, 2009 at 7:50 PM

My stated remark was in the context of the first commentary on the Constitution. It was by Justice Joseph Story. He was appointed a justice to the Supreme Court by a Founding Father. The issue is with how the founders and the earliest Supreme Court authorities interpreted and applied the Constitution.

There were reasons for said exclusions. Do some homework. Read their rationale. And ask why none balked at such decisions.

And what’s up with all the caps? I read you loud and lear without them

Reply

MLGV3ngeance November 30, 2009 at 7:39 PM

What is the relevance of “Candy Canes”, there is no religious relevance to that, they are a candy shaped like a walking stick. They are not religious in any way. Crosses on grave stones also is not relevant, they are already passed, a person does not hold any rights past death, as well as a cross not having any effect if they have already passed and went to “heaven.” God in a certificate isn’t anything substantial either. Not having a belief stated in a document doesnt make the said flag any l

Reply

MLGV3ngeance November 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

less important.

Reply

MLGV3ngeance November 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM

And whilist Seperation of Church and state is not stated in the constitution, it’s a legal principle, known as a law, and that shall be enforced in schools alike.

Reply

Ringo84 November 30, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Separation of Church and State exists as surely as I do.

Do you have some problem with religious freedom? No? Then why are you creating ignorant videos on YouTube arguing against it?

Reply

awblandford November 30, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Thia guy kind of makes me angry. He keeps appealing to the intentions of the founding fathers, but he is clearly ignoring the fact that jefferson and others put the word “religion” into the document INTENTIONALLY. If they had meant to put “rival christian denominations” into the text, they would have. He pinpoints the intentions and understanding of some and ignores that of others.

Reply

awblandford November 30, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Not to mention the fact that he is focusing on the context of the original constitution and ignoring a vastly more important context, specifically, that of the modern world. The separation of church and state makes sense in 21st century America, even if it didn’t make sense in 18th century America (although I think it clearly did).

Reply

awblandford November 30, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Bottom line, it is abundantly clear that this man is biased against the traditional interpretation of the first amendment, and that he is picking and choosing information that helps him achieve his goal of discounting it. This should come as no surprise to anyone, and if any of you are really going to try and have this argument, you should try and find someone better to get your ideas from.

Reply

Leave a Comment