Separation of Church and State

[obsrvr524]

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Mowk]

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.

[Mowk]

Mowk wrote:
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.


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?

Mowk wrote:
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.


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".

Mowk wrote:
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.


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.

obsrvr524
Thinker

Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:03 am

Tops

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.

How about Chairman Mao's picture on the dollar. Will that satisfy you?

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.

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.

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."

Most are your Marxist comrades.

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.

[obsrvr524]

LOL, those that be watching are the capitalists. The profiteers of commercialism, The advertisers of the perfect product that you just have to try.

"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.

[Mowk]

Show me the evidence don't sing me a lullaby.

Again you come with nothing but a bully posture to offer?

Bully Bully.

[Mowk]

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.

[Mowk]

You did not answer the question.

Are "we" the people or do you reserve that for your click?

[obsrvr524]

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.

You did not answer the question.

Are "we" the people or do you reserve that for your click?

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.

[Mowk]

I have observed you. It ain't google or the Chinese.

[obsrvr524]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

Does everyone question to the same depth? Do some question more then others? Do some not question at all?

This is a separate issue. But perhaps you are not responding to me here.

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 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.

I am not sorry to challenge your bias.

Again, no idea if you are responding to me, but personally I am extremely in favor of separation of Church and State.

[promethean75]

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.

[obsrvr524]

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.

[promethean75]

"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.

[Mowk]

"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.

[obsrvr524]

"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.

I like all of that part.

"We The People" sounds like a fairly communistic way to begin a preamble to the formation of a constitutional republic.

Every nation has a "we the people" concern at the very top, especially democracies. In communism "we" don't have a voice to be saying anything. In socialist and especially communist countries, "You the people in order to conform to..." is more fitting.

Communism is a two class system where the working class has no real voice in how a country is run.

That is mere socialism - pre-communism. Communism is when the upper class gets reduced down so that everyone is impoverished together (which is why it never actually works).

Sounds remarkably similar to what the Republicans are trying to accomplish. Same result, does it matter what it is called? That's irony.

From abroad it is very very obvious that both US parties have an upper class of elites. The difference is that the socialist party ("Democrats") are extremely snobbish "I'm better than you", "rules for thee not me", "I am above you" (Ms Pelosi, Ms Clinton types) while espousing "we love and care for you little people" and making background often criminal deals to cheat and rob from the public. The Republican party has less of that and more of the hard nose business minded "we know what makes sense", "law and order", "these are the rules we all must play by" while also (but far less often) making background deals to support their favorite donors. The Republicans lie far less often but are still far from being pure of heart.

Both parties very obviously support massive corporations who end up controlling them more than being controlled by them.

Democrats = "we are better than you" using media corporation money to beguile the public.
Republicans = "we are smarter than you" using industrial corporate money to stay in office.

There doesn't seem to be a great difference until this presidency. Mr Trump triggered the Democrats to go full on swamp, as dirty as they can get, lying criminal espionage, zero ethics or concern for the public. And the Republicans just sit back and watch.

The thing that Americans are being blinded to is that China has been running the American socialist agenda for decades. That is why the Democrats keep yelling RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!. Russia has been playing a very minor role and certainly not favoring Mr Trump. Both Russia and most certainly China desperately want Mr Biden to win (especially Iran).

Communist = anti-religion
Socialist = one religion only (ours)
Democratic = just vote, who cares about religion.

At least that is the way it looks to me.

[Mowk]

Every nation has a "we the people" concern at the very top, especially democracies. In communism "we" don't have a voice to be saying anything. In socialist and especially communist countries, "You the people in order to conform to..." is more fitting.

I find this sentence a self contradiction such that "every nation" does not have a "we the people" concern. But, for a nation to begin with it, as a preamble to their constitution implies it was an important way to frame the organization and formation of a nation by it's founding fathers. I don't think either of our dominant political parties have been loyal to that founding principle. A lot of lip service and propaganda is disseminated toward the public perception of it, but in practice, and policy, not so much.

To do anything to subvert the process of, one person, one vote makes a mockery of "We The People". As example encouraging an armed militia's to quote "observe" the vote is a form of subversion, in a sinister disguise. Casting doubt on the voting process itself is a subversion. To declare statements like "if I don't win, the election was rigged" is a subversion. Trump is an egomaniac. He endorses notions of imprisonment with out due process with his rally chants of "lock em up". What happened to the presumption of innocence? Where is the trial, the evidence, the impartial jury of peers, in that sentiment? It falls just short of capital punishment, why lock em up when that costs money.... the democratic communist monsters should be shot on sight.

Let's all endorse putting a semi-automatic riffle in the hands of children and give them the authority to act as our police. Let's jump right over anything that lays in between and declare all democrats endorse the de funding of police and are unconcerned with the rule of law when our constitution states otherwise.

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.

[Mowk]

I am an American that defends and supports the Constitution, I don't defend and support a specific political party and I won't support a president that doesn't endorse the Constitution as well. Trump with his "lock em up' rally chants certainly doesn't support the rule of law, where the accused are presumed innocent, and entitled to the due process of law and a trail by peers. Just skip over all that and jump straight to incarceration. That's how dumb some of Trumps support base is. They endorse the opposite of what America was founded for.

[obsrvr524]

I don't think either of our dominant political parties have been loyal to that founding principle. A lot of lip service and propaganda is disseminated toward the public perception of it, but in practice, and policy, not so much.

That part appears very obvious.

I just think that you have your party loyalties backward (which happens to be an intentional Marxist ploy - confuse and divide through hypocrisy - be the opposite of what you say). You very seriously should be supporting Mr Trump regardless of whether you like the fella. Just look at the alternative (which they constantly try to hide and get you to focus on something ELSE to hate).

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.

It's an admirable preamble.

[Mowk]

I don't have party loyalty. I am not a paying supporter of any political party, not republican, not democrat, not socialist, not communist. I agree with our first President and founding father George Washington, who had no political party affiliation. He thought for himself.

Trump is a moron doing the same thing. Look again, they are tactics right out of the Trump republican Pelosi democrat partisan political playbook. Paint the other side as an extremist. All of them should take about 10 giant steps toward the center. It is real easy for China or Russia to provide destabilization, both political parties are doing half the work for them.

"Lock em up" as a rally chant, as example, lets all forget due process, the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial, and actual evidence presented. Treason is a capital offense he'd just line up anyone that disagrees with him and shoot them. Life time incarceration comes with such a high cost and cuts into the profits.

Since Trump has been President we have become a nation practicing capital punishment again. While some may think that is a step in the right direction, I'm not inclined to the thinking it makes us a more perfect union.

Biden is nothing more then a short term solution to a current moron as President. It is a shame all America is left with the choice between which is the lesser evil, while both sides call the other evil. I'm thinking we could use a break from party politics and loyalty to anyone else's thinking. It is actually a lot more complicated a puzzle then either party can allow to let on.... It is so much easier for either party, if we are all dumb and uneducated and all just blindly follow a party line.

That is the opposite of what our founding fathers were trying to create and moves us as a nation further away from that thing called the blessing of Liberty.

[obsrvr524]

I don't have party loyalty.

Trump is a moron doing the same thing. Look again, they are tactics right out of the Trump republican playbook.

"Lock em up" as a rally chant, lets all forget due process,

I think that I am seeing more of what is really going on in your country than you are (understandably. You are in the fog of the war).

The phrase was "Lock HER up" referring to the criminal activities of Ms Clinton. Recently when speaking of the even more criminal activities of the socialist "Democrat" leaders and deep anti-American state, the chant became "Lock THEM up" referring specifically to FEDERAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINALS.

Nearly 100% of the law enforcement groups throughout the entire US have backed Mr Trump even though most of them used to only back Democrats and many never back anyone. There is a reason for that. Mr Trump has time and time again exposed the criminality of the ANTI-American Left-wing Marxists/Socialists.

Mr Trump couldn't be more pro-America if his life depended on it. And he has proven it (not merely preached ) time and time again with uncountable actions to defend the US Constitution from maligned socialist sabotage of that Constitution. That is why they promote such extreme hatred of him. They want GLOBAL domination, not an independent America.

the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial, and actual evidence presented.

You haven't been allowed to SEE the evidence. They refuse to actually investigate it or hold anyone accountable other than Republican Trump supporters.

You really need to watch more of the Right leaning media to see what has really been going on (if they will still let you do that in the US. Twitter and Google/Facebook won't). And I am not saying that the Right leaning media is ALL perfect. But they at least let you see an alternative side to the extreme Left leaning media so you can make up your own mind.

But all of this is beyond the Church vs State theme.

But then I could say, you are like a devout Christian praying to the devil to save you from that evil Jesus authoritarian. Or perhaps a devout Muslim pray to Israel to save you from that evil Mohammad.

[Mowk]

I think that I am seeing more of what is really going on in your country than you are (understandably. You are in the fog of the war).

The phrase was "Lock HER up" referring to the criminal activities of Ms Clinton.

Apparently you are not as informed as you think. It was "the" chant in 2016, it sort of evolved since then to include anyone they want it to.

[obsrvr524]

I think that I am seeing more of what is really going on in your country than you are (understandably. You are in the fog of the war).

The phrase was "Lock HER up" referring to the criminal activities of Ms Clinton.

Apparently you are not as informed as you think. It was "the" chant in 2016, it sort of evolved since then to include anyone they want it to.

Did you not read the rest of that post? I already said that except it wasn't "anyone they want it to". It was specifically pointed out (already exposed) people.

Pay attention.

[obsrvr524]

And again you are over focused on only one side, misinterpreting what they are saying.

On one side they chant at a peaceful rally LOCK THEM UP! - use the law.

On the other side (that you seem to ignore) they are chanting during a riot BURN IT DOWN! while they burn and loot property, attack and kill police, beatup and kill bystanders, burn police cars, tear down statues, defund the police, and claim that the USA is inherently racist and un-savable - "BURN IT ALL DOWN!" - including (and especially) the US Constitution - "NO LAWS!"

And YOU root for the second?

You really really really need to look at the only options there are. If you really like that Constitution, you are very seriously rooting for the wrong side in the war. This is Communism versus Constitutionalism. And you are rooting against the latter.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You are (with excellent rhetoric) trying to reason someone out of a position they arrived at through emotion.

That is why Trump. Trump is no more mister nice guy. Ironically the communists take this to mean "war," because they are children, whereas it really means negotiation. You don't require reason from the opposite side of the table to negociate. Like Mr President has proved with many an unhinged psycho out the other side of the world.