Should there be a wall of seperation?

[mongoose]

There's been some debate lately about whether or not the founding fathers believed that the state should be secular. How ever, no one seems to ask the question of SHOULD the wall exist?

You may commence bickering.

[Jabberwock]

I believe in what the Founding Fathers intended, a one way wall of separation.

The First Amendment gives the individual the right to worship your god whatever way you want as long as no other laws are violated, of course. This Amendment creates a wall for the government so that it can't interdict on these rights. This is the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

The "respecting an establishment of religion" clause prohibits the government from establishing a Church like that of the Church of England. This clause also had the effect of creating a secular government, but in no way a secular government is enforced. But I do believe a secular government is best.

All of this is to insure religious liberty.

As long as the religion clauses of the First Amendment is followed the US will never become a theocracy as a theocracy destroys religious liberty.

[Rush Limbaugh]

And that sums it all up very nicely.

[Last Roman]

yes, absolutely.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Should it exist, as in should secularism exist? Undebatably, yes. You will never find more dangerous and destructive people as the ultra-religious. Forget walls, get the chains.

[Joker85]

Should it exist, as in should secularism exist? Undebatably, yes. You will never find more dangerous and destructive people as the ultra-religious. Forget walls, get the chains.

Yeah, those crazy religious nuts like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot caused so much death and destruction in the 20th century.

You will never find more dangerous and destructive people than the ultra-atheists. Forget walls, get the chains.

[Last Roman]

Yeah, those crazy religious nuts like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot caused so much death and destruction in the 20th century.

You will never find more dangerous and destructive people than the ultra-atheists. Forget walls, get the chains.

the crusades, the inquisition, witch trials, jihads etc.

[Joker85]

the crusades, the inquisition, witch trials, jihads etc.

None of which killed as many as the 3 men I listed.

[Gwendylyn]

None of which killed as many as the 3 men I listed.

There's a big difference between a political ideology and a religious ideology. Just because a political ideology calls for a particular religious belief does not make it a religious ideology.

[Last Roman]

None of which killed as many as the 3 men I listed.

but it's only a sliver of what men have done in the name of religion.

[Dayman]

Yeah, those crazy religious nuts like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot caused so much death and destruction in the 20th century.

You will never find more dangerous and destructive people than the ultra-atheists. Forget walls, get the chains.

They didn't commit those crimes in the sake of atheism.

Also, a secular state =/= an atheist state.

[Rush Limbaugh]

They didn't commit those crimes in the sake of atheism.

And those killed in the name of religion are just that. Killed in its name not for it sake. Its just another excuse to kill and plunder. Religious or not it doesnt seem to matter.

Also, a secular state =/= an atheist state.

So then we can add all those killed by Americans to the list of those killed by atheists including those in the civil war?

[Dayman]

And those killed in the name of religion are just that. Killed in its name not for it sake. Its just another excuse to kill and plunder. Religious or not it doesnt seem to matter.

I agree. I don't like all this "YOUR IDEOLOGY KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN MINE" BS. You could say democracy is better than monarchy because of all those killed in the name of a monarch. That's bad logic.

So then we can add all those killed by Americans to the list of those killed by atheists including those in the civil war?

What? No. I think America should be a secular state, as opposed to the state atheism type of state where religion is rooted out. The government should be neutral towards religion, and allow people the practice as long as it does not infringe the rights of others.

I was just saying a secular state (like the U.S.), isn't like an atheist one.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yeah, those crazy religious nuts like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot caused so much death and destruction in the 20th century.

You will never find more dangerous and destructive people than the ultra-atheists. Forget walls, get the chains.

All these examples actually prove my point about secularism, though, if you care to give a second's thought to it.

[Joker85]

All these examples actually prove my point about secularism, though, if you care to give a second's thought to it.

And that point is?

[Gwendylyn]

Pretending that communism and atheism is the same is as ridiculous as pretending that nazism and theism is the same.

[jankren]

May USA turn into a rigid theological Christian country.

[Feliks]

I'm more for a barbed wire topped chain-link fence of separation between Church and State. The two don't mix, but I won't die if the two occasionally look at each other from time to time (maybe even share one last, succulent kiss through the fence. Oh what, no takers?).

[SwiftBlade]

I read an article stating that 270million people were killed on the name of islam
that means that atheists didn't kill the most.
(BTW i have nothing against Muslims im just stating what i read)

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's good?