Hitler Invented Seperation of Church and State

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Actually there is a older article that clearly states that the United States is a secular nation and was not founded on the Christian ideology, this was written in 1796.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

But for some reason the extreme radical right wants to push this nation into a hard core Christian theocracy. Constantly trying to push their way into our politics. It's a dangerous and often deadly mix.

No the idea of separation of church and state is not an invention of Adolf Hitler, it's part of our own United States Constitution.

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

People somehow refuse to understand this.

reply to post by justadood


Okay. I guess you require everything to be spelled out for you.

There is no defense of Glen Urquhart's idiocy. I did not attempt to defend it.

What I did was to address the OP's inference that idiocy is somehow an exclusive commodity of the Republicans and/or those supported by the Tea Party. I did so by providing an example, illustrating there is no lack of stupidity in both parties. Much like here on ATS!

I'll try to remember to type more slowly, the next time I see you are involved in a thread.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by justadood

 

Okay. I guess you require everything to be spelled out for you.

There is no defense of Glen Urquhart's idiocy. I did not attempt to defend it.

What I did was to address the OP's inference that idiocy is somehow an exclusive commodity of the Republicans and/or those supported by the Tea Party. I did so by providing an example, illustrating there is no lack of stupidity in both parties. Much like here on ATS!

then you may need to re-read the OP, because its quite specific in its criticism of this specific candidate. I posit that your partisan snipe at a Democrat is nothing more than what you say it is : "Here we go again. "Your candidate is more stupid than my candidate"

I'll try to remember to type more slowly, the next time I see you are involved in a thread.

Yes, I would suggest it. That way, you might catch some of the more patently absurd arguments you put forth and edit them out.

reply to post by neo96


Oh, so now you're going to bash Muslims while complaining about Christians being the victims?

You're pretty hilarious as it it is. Ever consider stand-up comedy?

reply to post by whatukno


The more you know, folks!

Shhh. Don't tell it to a right-wing sleazebag or you might just blow their tiny minds.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Actually there is a older article that clearly states that the United States is a secular nation and was not founded on the Christian ideology, this was written in 1796.

I guess even then, politicians were politicians. Using language to appease and pander to their current audience. An example occurred 13 years earlier with the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which begins with

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America...

www.earlyamerica.com...

...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, "no religious test" includes the lack of religious beliefs, as well as the presence of religious beliefs. Using one's Christian beliefs as a basis for exclusion is equally unacceptable, if we are to all be honest.

Originally posted by justadood
then you may need to re-read the OP, because its quite specific in its criticism of this specific candidate.

Okay, let me lead you by your little hand...

OP's 1st post

So says GOP candidate Glen Urquhart!

OP's 2nd post

Just like the Tea Party.

OP's 3rd post

And it's the Repubs and Tea Partiers that spout theocracy

Non part isan

The next time you need reality translated for you, drop me a U2U! Always glad to help!

Originally posted by Parallex
...open-mindedness, and tolerance...

Two things of which you have an abundance, obviously.

Originally posted by Parallex
And people wonder why myself, and others on here are waging a campaign of rebuttal to the fundamentalist Christian presence on ATS!!!

The Christian threat is REAL and a CLEAR and PRESENT danger.

Whether it's in the UK or the US - do we all want to end up like Afghanistan / Iran / Saudi Arabia / Yemen / UAE etc? A theocratic nation based on intolerant, fascist and bigoted religiously translated policy?

That's what the TEA PARTY phenomenon now represents.

Understand the danger that modern Christianity represents - understand it, fear it, FIGHT it!

Parallex.

Don't worry, it won't be long for you and your liberal pals will have the opportunity to slaughter millions of us Christians. I bet you will look just dandy with that mark on your forehead as you graciously bow down to your one world government leader.


On topic:

This is not a real Tea Party candidate. This is a far left bigoted nut job presenting himself as a Tea Party candidate in an effort to attempt to discredit the movement. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the communists, socialists, nazis (who are also socialists), and all other forms of left wing vermin, have been working to infiltrate the Tea Party for quite some time. This is why ballots will not work against this tyrannical trash.

reply to post by WTFover

So, "no religious test" includes the lack of religious beliefs, as well as the presence of religious beliefs. Using one's Christian beliefs as a basis for exclusion is equally unacceptable, if we are to all be honest.

It should be exclusionary if the candidate is trying to use that "faith" as part of their political agenda. Trying to impose some half baked old testament Christian version of Sharia Law on the people like these right wing rejects are trying to do.

Having a faith is fine and good. There is nothing at all wrong in being a part of a religion. But this government is supposed to be a secular democratic republic not a theocratic dichotomy. And despite the right winger's baseless fear mongering about sharia law taking over the US, the truth is, any form of theocracy is a horrible and evil picture.

All of the so called tea-party canadates are LOONS. Wacked, not both oars in the water, 3 fries short of a happy meal, dim bulbs...

Its a sad day for all humanity when you see this foolishness, when there are so many important things to fix in the world, instead we get this foolishness..

LOONS..

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Parallex
...open-mindedness, and tolerance...

Two things of which you have an abundance, obviously.

Thank you for the lovely, constructive post.

I'm more than happy for Christians to practice their religion. But Christian extremists - who are more and more in abundance, they are DANGEROUS!

Parallex.

I think I have a more current, modern day Boogie Man, that would agree with this politician's stance against seperation of church and state. Muslim Extremists.

Originally posted by whatukno
It should be exclusionary if the candidate is trying to use that "faith" as part of their political agenda. Trying to impose some half baked old testament Christian version of Sharia Law on the people like these right wing rejects are trying to do.

As should someone with an anti-religious or even atheist agenda.

I assume you are making a vague reference to O'Donnell's past involvement with an anti-masturbation campaign. If so, I agree that is a silly concept. But I have to question the rationality of people getting their undies in a bunch over it. Let's say she is elected and introduces legislation to ban masturbation. Exactly how many supporters do you think she will round up? My guess is maybe one or two. Maybe.

reply to post by OldDragger


Seeing as TJ was responsible for that particular portion of the constitution, I will take his word as to it's intent.

The far right has jumped the shark.
First Democrats are "Nazis"" now the constitution and our founding fathers are as well.

How far back do they want to turn back time? It's getting weird.

The term "wall of separation" was first used in an informal letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a committee of Baptists in Connecticut. Jefferson referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you can't think of a rational argument to throw at your opponent you just say Adolph Hitler did it.

This phenomenon, in debating, is facetiously called reductio ad Hitlerum.

The argument is often accompanied by faulty syllogisms. i.e.:

Hitler loved dogs
Hitler was a fascist
Obama loves dogs
Therefore, Obama is a fascist

"You're a Nazi." "Am not." "Are too.." "No YOU'RE the Nazi." "Am not." "Are too." etc.