Religious Freedom Run-a-Muck?

This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

It had been raining for days and days, and a terrible flood had come over the land. The waters rose so high that one man was forced to climb onto the roof of his house.

As the waters rose higher and higher, a man in a rowboat appeared, and told him to get in. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the rowboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and suddenly a speedboat appeared. “Climb in!” shouted a man in the boat. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the speedboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters continued to rise. A helicopter appeared and over the loudspeaker, the pilot announced he would lower a rope to the man on the roof. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the helicopter went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and eventually they rose so high that the man on the roof was washed away, and alas, the poor man drowned.

Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. “Heavenly Father,” he said, “I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?” God gave him a puzzled look, and replied “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It had been raining for days and days, and a terrible flood had come over the land. The waters rose so high that one man was forced to climb onto the roof of his house.

As the waters rose higher and higher, a man in a rowboat appeared, and told him to get in. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the rowboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and suddenly a speedboat appeared. “Climb in!” shouted a man in the boat. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the man in the speedboat went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters continued to rise. A helicopter appeared and over the loudspeaker, the pilot announced he would lower a rope to the man on the roof. “No,” replied the man on the roof. “I have faith in the Lord; the Lord will save me.” So the helicopter went away. The man on the roof prayed for God to save him.

The waters rose higher and higher, and eventually they rose so high that the man on the roof was washed away, and alas, the poor man drowned.

Upon arriving in heaven, the man marched straight over to God. “Heavenly Father,” he said, “I had faith in you, I prayed to you to save me, and yet you did nothing. Why?” God gave him a puzzled look, and replied “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”[/quote]

That’s the one. (^_^)

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?[/quote]

You beat me to it. Here are the first two sentences, to get a flavor of the piece:

“Thomas Jefferson would sue for slander if he knew of what folks were accusing him. It is true that Old Thomas did not like government declared days of fasting or thanksgiving.” [sic]

What command of written English!

More seriously: a “very good article” on Jefferson’s attitude toward the separation of Church and State would not ramble for 800 words without directly quoting Jefferson a single time.

That Zeb gets his information from Yahoo! Contributor Network’s Deborah Hooper and other like-minded scholars of renown is as ludicrous as it is unsurprising.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?[/quote]

You beat me to it. Here are the first two sentences, to get a flavor of the piece:

“Thomas Jefferson would sue for slander if he knew of what folks were accusing him. It is true that Old Thomas did not like government declared days of fasting or thanksgiving.” [sic]

What command of written English!

More seriously: a “very good article” on Jefferson’s attitude toward the separation of Church and State would not ramble for 800 words without directly quoting Jefferson a single time.

That Zeb gets his information from Yahoo! Contributor Network’s Deborah Hooper and other like-minded scholars of renown is as ludicrous as it is unsurprising.[/quote]

But, is it as bad as jumping on an attack of an article by refuting the writing style of the author while not a single time addressing the substance of the writing? I haven’t even read it, but if this lady is dumb and wrong, addressing the substance should be easy. Not being a good author and not being right are very distinct things.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?[/quote]

Nice way to attack the writer instead of the meaning of the article. But I guess that’s all you got because that is what Jefferson said and had intended.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?[/quote]

You beat me to it. Here are the first two sentences, to get a flavor of the piece:

“Thomas Jefferson would sue for slander if he knew of what folks were accusing him. It is true that Old Thomas did not like government declared days of fasting or thanksgiving.” [sic]

What command of written English!

More seriously: a “very good article” on Jefferson’s attitude toward the separation of Church and State would not ramble for 800 words without directly quoting Jefferson a single time.

That Zeb gets his information from Yahoo! Contributor Network’s Deborah Hooper and other like-minded scholars of renown is as ludicrous as it is unsurprising.[/quote]

That you are unable to attack the meaning of what Jefferson wrote is unsurprising. You and your liberal pals know only one thing, attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. But the fact is the woman was correct about Jefferson.

Now prove her wrong or shut up. Your baseless attacks on her ability are senseless.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a very good article on the real meaning of separation of church and state.

For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read it I can sum it up in one sentence:

An opinion article from a middle age lady who possibly didn’t finish college and is the author of other such famous pieces as “your free living room makeover” and “Senior and Sexy - Busting the myths”?[/quote]

You beat me to it. Here are the first two sentences, to get a flavor of the piece:

“Thomas Jefferson would sue for slander if he knew of what folks were accusing him. It is true that Old Thomas did not like government declared days of fasting or thanksgiving.” [sic]

What command of written English!

More seriously: a “very good article” on Jefferson’s attitude toward the separation of Church and State would not ramble for 800 words without directly quoting Jefferson a single time.

That Zeb gets his information from Yahoo! Contributor Network’s Deborah Hooper and other like-minded scholars of renown is as ludicrous as it is unsurprising.[/quote]

But, is it as bad as jumping on an attack of an article by refuting the writing style of the author while not a single time addressing the substance of the writing? I haven’t even read it, but if this lady is dumb and wrong, addressing the substance should be easy. Not being a good author and not being right are very distinct things.

[/quote]

I addressed the substance when I noted that Jefferson is not quoted a single time in the piece. That in itself disqualifies it as a reputable source of information. Furthermore, a writer unable to form basic, coherent sentences is a writer unable to win the trust of an intelligent person, especially on a subject as nuanced and complicated as Jefferson’s attitude toward religion.

Re: the actual debate, I am busy today but will address it presently.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
These people are far too stupid to breed. It’s a shame they went a head and tried anyway. [/quote]

Well, there is one less breeder now…?

You have to quote someone to discuss them? Not having quotes is not the substance of an argument. It sounds like you don’t know what substance even means.

Oh darn this doesn’t count because I didn’t quote you.

A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science.

There should be no distinction between a freedom that is religious and one that is not. If parents want to refuse medical treatment for their child on the basis of religion they should only be allowed to legally do it if another set of parents can refuse the same treatment just because they want to.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

I think I can best worship god by giving my child a condition from which they could then be faith heeled?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to quote someone to discuss them? Not having quotes is not the substance of an argument. It sounds like you don’t know what substance even means.

Oh darn this doesn’t count because I didn’t quote you.[/quote]

Frankly, yes. A discussion of Jefferson’s beliefs without reference to Jefferson’s many written professions of those beliefs is futile and ridiculous. It might get published in some dank amateur corner of the internet but it would never see the light of day in a reputable outlet. The Wall Street Journal–whose editors have an unconcealed interest in showing that religion has a place in American politics–would literally never publish a piece of shit like that article.

If you are writing about Jefferson’s attitude toward religion and you do not refer directly to his writings, then your argument can be discounted.

If you make a claim in such a piece of writing, then you must show why it is so. If you do not, then you have not succeeded.

This is elementary school shit.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have to quote someone to discuss them? Not having quotes is not the substance of an argument. It sounds like you don’t know what substance even means.

Oh darn this doesn’t count because I didn’t quote you.[/quote]

And in case my last post didn’t drive the point home, here is a simpler version. I will refute her argument:

Jefferson wanted government free of religion just as much as he wanted religion free of government.

I have just given exactly as much evidence as she did in her “article.” So, I’m done, right?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A truly sad story but I have to come down on the side of Religious freedom . While I disagree with the parents to the ninth degree I do not believe you can prosecute some one for being stupid . I think if there is a God the best way to show your faith is to study Gods creation and the ways that they all work . I believe we would call those miracles as far as we can understand Science. [/quote]

Science? Science is a method of study, not an event. It’s a measure. Therefore you would not call an event, “science”. That’s like calling a centimeter, a ruler.

What miracles are you referring too?[/quote]

life
[/quote]

Are you referring to abiogenesis?
[/quote]
with out researching Abiogenisis I would say not exactly. If there is a God then Science has to be his operating system . IMO for life to run smoothly you have to understand the operating system .I will reasearch that subject , thanks