Poll of the Day > Trump set to allow CHURCHES to ENDORSE POLITICIANS by Killing Johnson Bill!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

TyVulpine posted...

deoxxys posted...

TyVulpine posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

lolwut? Of course they are. "Believe what we tell you and accept our rules without question or you'll go to hell!"

Thats only your perception of them, some of them think similar minded things about you. theres a side to everything and everythings not as it seems.

What's their side? "Our god is the true god, all others are false shepherds and anyone that doesn't follow our demands and laws will be punished!"
There. That's their side, and has been for the last 2,017 years.

Now you are just making yourself sound like an ignoramus
---

deoxxys posted...

well that would be their stance, their political view, its not religion itself

people on the left try to ban stuff as well, just look at sjws and feminists

People on the left try to ban things because of their religious affiliation now?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

If some non-profits can endorse politicians, than so should churches. To my way of thinking, that doesn't violate "separation of church and state" because it would be open to any religion and therefore would not constitute the establishment of a state religion.

Jesus Christ. That's not what separation of church and state means. It means no religion in politics at all.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

Which has literally nothing to do with separation of church and state.

jedirood posted...

I guess seperation of church and state doesn't matter.

See above. Although you went the extra step of misspelling "separation" =p

Revelation34 posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

Doesn't matter. Still applies. Religion does not belong in politics at all.

Which again isn't what the precept means.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

If some non-profits can endorse politicians, than so should churches. To my way of thinking, that doesn't violate "separation of church and state" because it would be open to any religion and therefore would not constitute the establishment of a state religion.

Jesus Christ. That's not what separation of church and state means. It means no religion in politics at all.

Except that's literally not what it means at all. Separation of Church and state originates in reference to First Amendment protections for religion, NOT the right of government to remove the First Amendment from religion. In fact, in some ways you're proposing the OPPOSITE of what it means.
---

go away duckbear

nobody likes your topics

Like Obama saying he wouldn't try to censor the internet then tried to pass SOPA 3 fucking times.

Obama didn't create SOPA and he was always against it.
---

Fastest_Spartan posted...

Like Obama saying he wouldn't try to censor the internet then tried to pass SOPA 3 fucking times.

Obama didn't create SOPA and he was always against it.

He was for it before he was "against" it and, even when he was "against" it, he was still for parts of it. The only thing that's true about your statement is that he didn't create it.

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy

He wanted more stringent legislation (and still did even after SOPA's defeat), but the petition and overwhelming public disapproval caused him to back off from SOPA.
---

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

If some non-profits can endorse politicians, than so should churches. To my way of thinking, that doesn't violate "separation of church and state" because it would be open to any religion and therefore would not constitute the establishment of a state religion.

Jesus Christ. That's not what separation of church and state means. It means no religion in politics at all.

Except that's literally not what it means at all. Separation of Church and state originates in reference to First Amendment protections for religion, NOT the right of government to remove the First Amendment from religion. In fact, in some ways you're proposing the OPPOSITE of what it means.

No it literally means a complete separation. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It's about separating government and religion entirely. Doesn't mean that a politician can't be religious. It just means they shouldn't be trying to force their own views on everybody else.

Fastest_Spartan posted...

Obama didn't create SOPA and he was always against it.

Create and pass are two completely different words and mean two completely different things.
---

Revelation34 posted...

No it literally means a complete separation. It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

You know what? I'm actually going to grant that you're 100% in the right here.

The problem is, the US constitution does not have separation of church and state, and this notion of it that your putting forward is not supported by either Jefferson's correspondence on the matter (where the phrase 'separation of church and state' comes from), or Lemon v Kurtzman. What you call separation of church and state is not part of the legal or political framework of the United States.

What the US has is prohibitions on making laws that either advance or inhibit any given form of religious expression - particularly on advancing one at the expense of others.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

If some non-profits can endorse politicians, than so should churches. To my way of thinking, that doesn't violate "separation of church and state" because it would be open to any religion and therefore would not constitute the establishment of a state religion.

Jesus Christ. That's not what separation of church and state means. It means no religion in politics at all.

Except that's literally not what it means at all. Separation of Church and state originates in reference to First Amendment protections for religion, NOT the right of government to remove the First Amendment from religion. In fact, in some ways you're proposing the OPPOSITE of what it means.

No it literally means a complete separation. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It's about separating government and religion entirely. Doesn't mean that a politician can't be religious. It just means they shouldn't be trying to force their own views on everybody else.

Except it doesn't. The phrase came from Thomas Jefferson in relation to first amendment protections.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

More importantly, endorsing a candidate IS separate from anything within the political realm so even if you weren't completely wrong on the first, you'd still be completely wrong on the second.
---

AverageBoss posted...

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.

You are ridiculously naive if you think that lifting "restrictions" for Christians will be applied equally to other religions. It doesn't even work that way now. As it stands right now the separation of Church and State barely works. Churches already endorse politicians all the time. Trump's VP comes from a red state where one of the most popular ways Republicans stay in power is to whine that "Christianity is under attack" and pass Christian favored laws. "War on Christmas" usually gets trotted out every few years.
---

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

AverageBoss posted...

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.

You are ridiculously naive if you think that lifting "restrictions" for Christians will be applied equally to other religions. It doesn't even work that way now. As it stands right now the separation of Church and State barely works. Churches already endorse politicians all the time. Trump's VP comes from a red state where one of the most popular ways Republicans stay in power is to whine that "Christianity is under attack" and pass Christian favored laws. "War on Christmas" usually gets trotted out every few years.

That's not an actual endorsement from the church itself, just an endorsement from Fox News.
---

Zeus posted...

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

AverageBoss posted...

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.

You are ridiculously naive if you think that lifting "restrictions" for Christians will be applied equally to other religions. It doesn't even work that way now. As it stands right now the separation of Church and State barely works. Churches already endorse politicians all the time. Trump's VP comes from a red state where one of the most popular ways Republicans stay in power is to whine that "Christianity is under attack" and pass Christian favored laws. "War on Christmas" usually gets trotted out every few years.

That's not an actual endorsement from the church itself, just an endorsement from Fox News.

You can pretend that all you want. It's not true. Pence's little "right to refuse service to homosexuals" law was all about pandering to "Christians." Indiana passed a law a few years ago "protecting" teachers in case they got in "trouble" for saying Christmas. And this is with the current barriers in place. You take those away it will really go nuts.
---

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

Zeus posted...

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

AverageBoss posted...

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.

You are ridiculously naive if you think that lifting "restrictions" for Christians will be applied equally to other religions. It doesn't even work that way now. As it stands right now the separation of Church and State barely works. Churches already endorse politicians all the time. Trump's VP comes from a red state where one of the most popular ways Republicans stay in power is to whine that "Christianity is under attack" and pass Christian favored laws. "War on Christmas" usually gets trotted out every few years.

That's not an actual endorsement from the church itself, just an endorsement from Fox News.

You can pretend that all you want. It's not true. Pence's little "right to refuse service to homosexuals" law was all about pandering to "Christians." Indiana passed a law a few years ago "protecting" teachers in case they got in "trouble" for saying Christmas. And this is with the current barriers in place. You take those away it will really go nuts.

Except that forcing somebody to act against their religion is something very explicitly prohibited in the First Amendment (which is the real separation of Church and state, and one impetus for America's earliest settlers to come here). Those laws very literally go against the original document and, more importantly, most religions have a similar view against acknowledging gay weddings. And the fact that somebody could get in trouble for saying Christmas in the first place is a very specific First Amendment violation since it was government blocking their speech in that instance (whereas a private employer would be fine). And the fact that you think these are egregious "going nuts" examples just underscores the hilarious stupidity of your claims. Getting rid of the Johnston Bill would literally do nothing. You think that it would create some caliphate for some bizarre reason, but there's zero grounds to the belief first in terms of the scope (since it's just an ENDORSEMENT) and secondly because back before Johnson's speech suppression bill was a thing those issues never existed anyway. It was always nothing less than a cheap political tactic, a leftist jellybean test designed to block free speech ONLY from religious groups -- very specifically targeting Christians -- while still giving it to other non-profits who, in many cases, had ACTUAL benefit from their access to speech because they got government funding.

@PSDragonRngr01
---

Zeus posted...

Except that forcing somebody to act against their religion is something very explicitly prohibited in the First Amendment (which is the real separation of Church and state, and one impetus for America's earliest settlers to come here). Those laws very literally go against the original document and, more importantly, most religions have a similar view against acknowledging gay weddings. And the fact that somebody could get in trouble for saying Christmas in the first place is a very specific First Amendment violation since it was government blocking their speech in that instance (whereas a private employer would be fine). And the fact that you think these are egregious "going nuts" examples just underscores the hilarious stupidity of your claims. Getting rid of the Johnston Bill would literally do nothing. You think that it would create some caliphate for some bizarre reason, but there's zero grounds to the belief first in terms of the scope (since it's just an ENDORSEMENT) and secondly because back before Johnson's speech suppression bill was a thing those issues never existed anyway. It was always nothing less than a cheap political tactic, a leftist jellybean test designed to block free speech ONLY from religious groups -- very specifically targeting Christians -- while still giving it to other non-profits who, in many cases, had ACTUAL benefit from their access to speech because they got government funding.

Apparently Johnson was Christian too. So he was targeting his own kind?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Except that forcing somebody to act against their religion is something very explicitly prohibited in the First Amendment (which is the real separation of Church and state, and one impetus for America's earliest settlers to come here). Those laws very literally go against the original document and, more importantly, most religions have a similar view against acknowledging gay weddings. And the fact that somebody could get in trouble for saying Christmas in the first place is a very specific First Amendment violation since it was government blocking their speech in that instance (whereas a private employer would be fine). And the fact that you think these are egregious "going nuts" examples just underscores the hilarious stupidity of your claims. Getting rid of the Johnston Bill would literally do nothing. You think that it would create some caliphate for some bizarre reason, but there's zero grounds to the belief first in terms of the scope (since it's just an ENDORSEMENT) and secondly because back before Johnson's speech suppression bill was a thing those issues never existed anyway. It was always nothing less than a cheap political tactic, a leftist jellybean test designed to block free speech ONLY from religious groups -- very specifically targeting Christians -- while still giving it to other non-profits who, in many cases, had ACTUAL benefit from their access to speech because they got government funding.

Apparently Johnson was Christian too. So he was targeting his own kind?

Not sure why you feel that this is an actual argument or, for that matter, where you're trying to go with it.

@Revelation34
---

Zeus tagging peeps is funny cause he shits when he's tagged.
---