Is this real?

[ATbuckhunter]

The separation of church & state was so important that the progressive founding fathers saw to it that it was included in the 1st amendment.

 

Today's conserva-turd radicals disquising themselves as conservatives want to legislate their narrow minded religious views into our govermment & thus the laws passed. That is no different than "sharia law" & no I don't think it should be any part of the government of the USA.

This right here! I don't believe any religion belongs in the government or school. I think they should have respect for everyone's religion but not to incorporate it into any part of the govt. That would include the crazy sharia law that wacko's thought up. 

[Mr VJP]

The separation of church & state was so important that the progressive founding fathers saw to it that it was included in the 1st amendment.

 

 

This is the problem with many people in America.  So much of what they know just isn't true.

 

No where in the 1st Amendment do those words, or that sentiment appear.

 

Amendment I

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.

 

These same people also ignore this part:  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

 

This amendment was never intended to mean "freedom FROM religion".

 

The founders had seen the Church of England instituted by the King with state approved persecution of all other religions.  That is what they wanted to prevent when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

 

What modern progressives are trying to do is set up the government as the religion in America with sanctioned persecution of all others.  The founders would vehemently object to the things the government is doing today, surely questioning why they are not following their sworn oaths to support and defend the US Constitution.

 

Just to be clear here, no religion should dictate laws in America.  But religious people have the right to lobby lawmakers, just like anyone else, in order to persuade them to pass laws they want.  That's also a right protected by the 1st Amendment and the entire US Constitution.

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Mr VJP]

Sorry everyone. I didn't mean to start a religious debate. Just wanted to know if I needed to add a Kevlar vest to my camo..

 

Nothing wrong with a good debate if people can be civil.

 

Would you be willing to visit that compound and let us all know what happens when you go there?

After all, the sign says "Welcome to Islamberg".

[Black Bellamy]

Oh you guys make me laugh.

 

I wonder how much time has to pass before someone says I love the Nazis and someone replies we'll what about all that murder and the first person says well that was so long ago.   And besides those guys were following Mein Kampf Old Testament.  Check out this New Testament Mein Kampf, it's so much more peaceful than this other book I'm trying to badmouth.   

 

 

 

 

[The_Field_Ager]

Oh you guys make me laugh.

 

I wonder how much time has to pass before someone says I love the Nazis and someone replies we'll what about all that murder and the first person says well that was so long ago.   And besides those guys were following Mein Kampf Old Testament.  Check out this New Testament Mein Kampf, it's so much more peaceful than this other book I'm trying to badmouth.   

 

What?!  lol

 

In logical circles, what we have above is a serious of critical thought fallacies and errors. I have listed them here. Look them up if you want:

 

The above comment contains the fallacies of:

 

Straw-man Fallacy

False Analogy

Appeal to Consequences

Red Herring

Argument from Ignorance

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization

The Post Hoc fallacy.

Sweeping Generalization Fallacy

 

 

This folks, is why a classical education is good. It generally prevents us from saying dumb things.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Papist

[Curmudgeon]

In case you missed it, my posts got more upvotes than you and that raving lunatic, wildcat, combined .

 

Papist -

 

A couple of observations/questions:

 

First, I think you give Black Bellamy too much credit. It appears to me to have been a quick attempt to throw fuel on this fire. It failed.

 

Second, how do you reconcile the Papist above - the one counting popularity votes - with the Papist that is so obviously well schooled?

 

[The_Field_Ager]

 

 

Second, how do you reconcile the Papist above - the one counting popularity votes - with the Papist that is so obviously well schooled?

 

 

 

It's interesting to me that you feel any reconciliation is needed. I certainly don't. I clearly don't fit within the frame of your worldview. That's perfectly OK by me.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Papist

[wildcat junkie]

Papist -

A couple of observations/questions:

First, I think you give Black Bellamy too much credit. It appears to me to have been a quick attempt to throw fuel on this fire. It failed.

Second, how do you reconcile the Papist above - the one counting popularity votes - with the Papist that is so obviously well schooled?

Perhaps his foil hat isn't wrapped tight enough?

[The_Field_Ager]

Perhaps his foil hat isn't wrapped tight enough?

 

 

Another example of the logical fallacy fail here folks, The Ad Hominem Attack. A liberal favorite, expertly demonstrated by wildcat. An old hand at this sort of thing.

[Curmudgeon]

You clearly don't fit into my worldview. What do you think of the first Jesuit Pope?

[The_Field_Ager]

You clearly don't fit into my worldview. What do you think of the first Jesuit Pope?

 

Off topic is what I think.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Papist

[Curmudgeon]

Isn't this whole thing off topic for a hunting forum?

[The_Field_Ager]

Isn't this whole thing off topic for a hunting forum?

 

You mean a hunting site with a general chit chat, politics and Jobs sub-forum?

 

I guess the answer is no.

 

Are we attempting to re-frame the debate here? That's in the play-book too. 

[jjb4900]

this has got to be the longest thread that involves the fewest amount of people..........impressive to say the least.

[Curmudgeon]

Are we attempting to re-frame the debate here? That's in the play-book too. 

 

I ask every Catholic I know the same question.

 

[wildcat junkie]

Papist -

Second, how do you reconcile the Papist above - the one counting popularity votes - with the Papist that is so obviously well schooled?

I'm not one that puts much stock in popularity votes, but since the village idiot brought it up.

(As of the time I checked profile data before I started typing this post)

Papist: 300 popularity vote for 1442 posts = .21 votes per post or 1vote for every 4.8 posts

Wildcat Junkie: 167 popularity votes for 528 posts = .31 votes per post or 1 vote for every 3.2 posts.

That means that the Papist only gets about 2/3 the amount of popularity votes per post as one of those he is criticizing.

So, it seems that the Papist is not very well schooled in the practical application of math.

[The_Field_Ager]

I'm not one that puts much stock in popularity votes.

 

 

Once again, wildcat contributes exactly  zero percentage points of  relevancy to the debate at hand as it relates to the OP. You can only Lol at the irony here.

[The_Field_Ager]

Brooklyn imam: “Let us admit…that we, the Muslims, are time bombs…The majority of us Muslims hate the Christians”

 

Wildcat will be in good company once these boyos decide the time for Dhimmitude has arrived. I am convinced now that liberals are simply frustrated Jihadists, compelled by the social mores of Western culture, to curtail their true hearts desires.

 

 

“Brooklyn Imam Tareq Yousef Al-Masri on Paris Terror Attacks: We Muslims Must Admit That We Are Time Bombs and We Hate Christians,” MEMRI, January 9, 2015:

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/brooklyn-imam-let-us-admit-that-we-the-muslims-are-time-bombs-the-majority-of-us-muslims-hate-the-christians

Edited January 31, 2015 by Papist