Comments for Separation of Church and State | Eastern NC Now
Browse all Comments for Separation of Church and State...
 |
Yes or at least use correct quotes when referring to "C&S"
It is so much easier to copy and paste facts than endless debate so here goes: “For tax purposes, the Moral Majority established several different organizations. The tax-exempt Moral Majority Foundation was set up as an educational group focusing on voter registration; the Moral Majority Political Action Committee was the branch that raised money for candidates; the Moral Majority Inc. was the lobbying group for influencing legislation at all levels; and the Moral Majority Legal Defense Foundation was set up to counter the influence of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (8,14) Although the national Moral Majority (headed by Falwell) was very visible and outspoken, it had a very loose and uncoordinated structure. It functioned primarily as an extensive mailing list of individuals and groups that shared similar fears and hostilities about the changes in our society.” rightweb.irc-online.org
Commented: Sunday, August 2nd, 2015 @ 8:11 am
By: Bobby Tony
|
 |
The complete wording is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion." Do us "liberals" have to put all the words up each time or simply state it as "separation of church and state?" The 501(c)3 status of "non-profit/tax-exempt" clearly states that such entities are prohibited from political activities and undue influence of government. Add to this --- the history of Founding Fathers shedding of the cloak of tyrannical Kings and wealth + the power of church over state in both England and Europe --- and you have the context of the above statement. In this century we are far away from that dream of "freedom and justice for all." I come from a Baptist background where --- from Roger Williams in Providence, R.I., with a formal type church to the Circuit Riders of the South like the Methodists --- ALL have refused to bow down to the state nor try and force the state to make them the new rulers of the new nation . . . I have my Masters of Divinity. A part of such is Church History from the Early Church to the present. You can now Google much of this OR I still have my big Church History text you can come and read for yourselves. Somehow, Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority escaped censure and taxation for violation of the rules. Big mouth aggressive religious potentates are hard to control while claiming Separation of Church and State in the reverse . . .Reagan enlisted their help in his run and things have not been the same since! 
Commented: Sunday, August 2nd, 2015 @ 7:46 am
By: Gene Scarborough
|
 |
I agree, the 1st Amendment is rather precise in its simplicity.
The funny part to all this is that this is the most quoted amendment by Liberals, and still, I just don't believe they grasp it.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 11:27 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
The first paragraph of my comment is not mine but a quote from the link below. Due to the one URL per comment rule I chose the Cornell link. I realize that constant factual references is tedious and boring but precision in debate is critical to prevent overly broad generalizations. I am just as guilty as anyone of forgetting that sometimes.
www.thepublicdiscourse.com I agree Stan, on the principal as well but believe the government should not encourage or discourage practice or not practice. I think the idea of not allowing the expression of faith by individuals on government property or meetings is similar to swallowing an elephant but choking on a gnat.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 10:40 pm
By: Bobby Tony
|
|
Thank-you Bobby Tony for clarifying this liberal fantasy for what it is.
I actually like the idea of separation of church and state, but it still does not make that philosophy constitutionally protected. You know, the reason Liberals say and do silly things is because they just do not know stuff.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 10:23 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
Everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.
The complete wording is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. www.law.cornell.edu I’ll let Diane provide any correction or clarification if needed since I am not qualified to explain multiple court rulings with any authority.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 10:11 pm
By: Bobby Tony
|
|
Once again, I want to affirm Stan as a good Publisher who is allowing for more than just the Conservative stance. I really hope this is part of the growing readership thing.
Between me and Brant Clifton plus one other writer, we are getting some good diversity ~~~ AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH "AGREEING TO DISAGREE" ON ANY GOOD TOPIC! 
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 5:40 pm
By: Gene Scarborough
|
|
I'm not sure what all the rambling in comments is all about. A bunch of it deserves some separate article by Stan or BT relative to what they are broaching. I am already seeing a similarity between Brant Clifton's fine article and this series on "getting along together."
What this particular article is covering is the danger of failing to separate church and state. The Founding Fathers wisely put "Congress shall make no laws pertaining to religion" in the formula for a new "experiment in democracy." I see clearly from Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and the Reagan Administration copulating with them --- a great danger which is growing larger each year in America. When you add the Moslem Middle East to the picture, we are in danger of another failed Great Crusade. . . Outside the US Civil War, that was arguably the greatest spilling of blood in human history . . . 
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 4:00 pm
By: Gene Scarborough
|
|
Ignorance is quantifiable. Dishonesty, while often a condition of stupidity, must be ferreted out, and then made quantifiable as well.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 1:43 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
I was being somewhat facetious in my ineloquent reference to Tom’s article. I am all in favor of spirited debate even to the point of name-calling when you determine that the participants have ventured beyond reasoned and fact based opinions and into realm of untenable beliefs.
To call someone ignorant is not a sign of disrespect but a reference that they may not be aware of certain facts. However when someone exhibits “willful ignorance” it indicates dishonest position and it should be challenged in the strongest way possible. As you say, the motives sometimes trump rational thought.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 1:12 pm
By: Bobby Tony
|
|
Actually, I agree with you and Tom to a point, and I showed this behavior in my 18 years as a county commissioner, and my over 5 years as publisher here on BCN.
However, there comes a point, when one deals with issues, with (as a county commissioner), or about (as an editorialist), people, who are patently dishonest: in their deeds, as liars, as destroyers of our ability to continue as a Republic, and, at that point, I will do everything in my power to take them down, and I want to be on record doing so. This goes beyond your opponent being egregiously stupid, this is about the motives that are manifested by their stupidity, and their subsequent, continuous dishonest behavior. Most politicians are dishonest people - even some Republicans. Most people, similarly, are borderline dishonest (they elected them), and they need to be reminded that others are watching.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 12:38 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
I figured it was just the system grouping categories but once I clicked on the link, I could not but help notice the 6th paragraph of Tom's great article. Since I am guilty of such, I will try to follow his admonition.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 12:27 pm
By: Bobby Tony
|
|
That is the system doing this.
"R-E-S-P-E-C-T" is a recent post by Tom Campbell, who does a statewide TV show. If you are meaning that Liberals respect the sanctity of life; they'll have none of that. Liberals are like Libertarians, just a little, as they want government out of their personal lives, their personal decisions; however, they do like government to: feed them, house them, clothe them, offer them continuous free education, pay for their art, their healthcare, and most of all, the destruction of human life. I know I left much out, but this is a good beginning.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 12:13 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
Stan, you may not have posted on C&S before and that is fine. But you are a very clever publisher. For the unsuspecting reader, notice the links our publisher has listed at the bottom of this post. Particularly the one on the bottom left. It ain't a link to Aretha. It could be a subliminal message in civility.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 12:06 pm
By: Bobby Tony
|
|
Thanks, because I have never really considered "Separation of Church and State" an important issue.
Just ran a Search on BCN, and not my name once in thousands of posts by me on that subject.
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 11:38 am
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
Please note we have a little confusion of Stan's name on my post . . .It will get fixed by our good Publisher soon . . .
Commented: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 @ 11:21 am
By: Gene Scarborough
|
