What happened to the separation of church and state?
- Rad Manposted 12 years ago
0The USA is supposed to be a secular society, but the religion or faith of their politicians seems to be of upmost importance. Canada for example, is also a secular society, but their citizens don't care what faith their politicians practice. What happened to the separation of church and state?
Religion became a tool for gaining voters and a control mechanism, they know how to use it for capitol gain...
Interesting to me as well is why the most unchristian political party has the most christian support. I just don't understand.
Money... Big money owns this country and we're all a slave to it.
Excellent point Rad Man. The cynical exploitation of religion (and probably fake piety too) for political purposes is a travesty.
Politicians want to appeal to the bible thumpers for votes. If those people believe in fairy stories, they would surly believe in the BS the politician is preaching.
That still has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of church and state.
No. The U.S. is supposed to be a Nation based on the belief in God as Supreme Authority.
There was and is no "separation of church and state". That phrase was brought into play in order to point out that the Government entity has no right to dictate which denomination of Christianity gets to make Government rules.No. The U.S. is supposed to be a Nation based on complete religious freedom - not the belief system of any particular religion or even Christian sect.
There is and always has been a "separation of church and state" although the phrase is a simplified version of the actual wording. That wording does not indicate anything of Christianity and applies equally to all religious belief systems. This, of course, means that a belief in God as Supreme Authority has nothing to do with our government, and that government cannot force that particular belief on the population.
When a church becomes a 501(c)3 organization, separation of church and state no longer applies. It is because of money that many of these churches do this, due to the fact that a church does not need 501(c)3 status to be tax exempt, but in order to get certain funding from various foundations and organizations, it needs to be listed as tax exempt by the IRS.
The issue of politicians making decisions based on their religious convictions isn't even on the same planet as the issue of separation of church and state. I'm sick of people getting them confused.
Elected officials can make decisions for any reason they want. People can vote for any reason they want. It's called democracy.Seems to me that if people are voting for political parties or politicians based on religious views it's no different then the middle east where political parties are separated by religion. It's even more deceptive it the party is masquerading as a christian party when they don't value any of the christian values. Helping the needy comes to mind.
But I could be wrong, I'm a bit of an outsider when it comes to American politics. I'm just trying to understand.
The separation of church and state is a natural result of granting religious liberty. Once you allow every citizen to worship as they choose, the government (an institution that represents all of these citizens) cannot be justifiably based upon any specific style of worship. What concerns me more is not that elected officials are claiming to make decisions based on their own religious views but that we keep electing the same crop of Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists and they keep making the same decisions that we didn't like before. Total religious freedom for the people, but no religious diversity in the government. Strange.
I wonder how many photos there are, of presidents standing in front of a church?
Actually, and I don't mean to contradict, in England, the people went to the King or Queen's denomination. Catholicism was considered the enemy of the Church of England, and the crown wasn't tolerant of newer denominations, and the Puritans themselves came here to escape persecution by the state. The early colonials wanted to ensure that no one could mandate a state religion, nor did they want one particular faith to hold the reins of power here, as the Vatican did so well for so long. To include foreign beliefs outside the confines of christian faith more than likely never entered their thinking. They never thought of the possibility that America, as in the U.S. would become a melting pot...which it really hasn't. Many of the ingredients simply refuse to mix into the other ingredients. They have also always defined their own limits to belief systems. Some simply aren't recognized.
I agree with the statement about it not entering their minds about including foreign beliefs outside the Christian faith.
Thanks for clarifying some of this.
But I believe information says that that perceived rule in the Constitution was touted because a particular Christian denomination was trying to lobby for "rule", basically?
I'd like to find that again.I would have to disagree that the writers of the constitution never though of other religions and referred only to various sects of Christianity.
Paganism has never died out in Europe, and Islam was present at that time as well. Educated people, they had to know of the Crusades and of other belief systems in the world. I have a hard time believing that they "conveniently" forgot all about them or that it never occurred to them that people from somewhere other than England or Spain could occupy the new land. If nothing else, they already have Africans present that undoubtedly brought some of their own beliefs with them and of course Indians were already present as well.
A great deal of though and work went into producing the Constitution, from a wide disparity of peoples and beliefs. There is little chance that even more diversity was never considered. Rather, the writers meant exactly what they said - that government shall establish NO religion. Not that Christianity in general shall govern our land, but govt. shall not pick a particular sect to make rules. Given the care with which the document was crafted someone would have thought to include that statement if it were meant.I actually probably say this too much... but Thomas Jefferson edited the Jefferson Bible which, in part, inspired John Adams to go on to form the Unitarian Church. A church, which by most Christian definitions, is not a Christian church.
Both men -and quite a few others with similar beliefs- were kinda instrumental in creating the constitution of the U.S. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave at his nation being called a "Christian" nation.Thank you Melissa!
That's exactly my point in a nutshell. Those writers knew there were other belief systems, but made no mention that only the non-christian beliefs were forbidden for government to endorse. Rather they included all religions, including Christianity.
I'd rather go back to the grass roots of the idea which was formed on the basis of the Iroqouis Confederacy, but there women had an equal voice and the power of Veto.
They, as in those christian founding fathers never conceived of the idea that an Islamic person would ever want to live here. Being christian, they wouldn't have liked it much. They certainly acted strongly against native american beliefs, forcing them at the point of starvation, deprivation and a loaded gun to become "good" christians, nearly wiping out the beliefs of the entire continent. They didn't believe in religious freedom then, and that was well into the twentieth century, outlawing certain aspects of native beliefs altogether.
Who says this country is supposed to be a secular one? God, not Jesus, is on our money, in our Pledge of Allegiance (which is a solemn oath of patriotism to your country, not just a rhyme learned in school), in our founding documents, at the heart of political debates as you pointed out. God, however you know him or her, is a very fundamental aspect of this country. There is nothing SECULAR about the US. We try to be politically correct, but we are a huge melting pot of devout faiths of all types. We just aren't supposed to be Christian.
Its a double-standard. For example, a black comedian can use an entire hour making white jokes and it would be hilarious, no doubt (especially love Martin Lawrence's stand up). A white guy trying to pull off three black jokes in a row would have crickets and empty stares. Sure, it would be plenty fair to make black jokes, but nobody wants to hear them. Its awkward, and therefore, off limits.
Americans tout their religious tolerance for every religion in the world, except Christianity. Its the only one that is constantly repressed these days.
My 2 cents. Thanks for the forum topic Rad Man, good choice.
SteveI agree with nearly all that you say, although I'm not sure what you mean by "We just aren't supposed to be Christian".
However, has it occurred to you that Christians are "constantly repressed these days" because it is the only religion that constantly attempts to control other's lives? When Muslims try to enforce Sharia law in violation of the law of the land they are promptly shut down, but it happens seldom. Christianity, on the other hand is constantly trying to skirt (and cross) the intent of the law, just as it did when the words about God were put on our money and pledge in the 1950's. It is a never ending battle for those of us that don't want Christianity to control or force our actions as it never seems to end.
The word's "Nature's God" is used in our founding documents (Declaration of Independance)"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," (Ask a pagan who "nature's God is)...The word's " Their Creator" is also used..."that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (I guess this doesn't apply to Gay marriage or anything else the "church" might not like)
The phrase "In God we trust" was added to our paper money in 1956 (well after the founding of our country)
The Phrase "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. The original version, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (A baptist minister) didn't contain the words "under God" It originally said "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"Thank you for the facts. For the record though, I wasn't saying they all started at the founding of the nation. Only that the idea of a Secular state is absurd and that religion is very much a part of the fabric of the US, whether we like it or not.
Choosing to believe in nothing is a choice nonetheless, even an Atheist believes in something, even it is the idea of nothing...I would say that it has been incorporated into the fabric by those who follow the "christian" beliefs. I don't know if I agree that it was meant to be that way when this country was founded. I don't know if i would use the term "secular", but I would say that this country was founded on the premise that it wouldn't be governed by set religion. And that each citizen would be free to choose who, how and what to believe in for themselves and the government would keep "their nose out of it".
I don't think we are as "free" in this country as we like to believe we are. There are laws being passed that "seem" to cater to a certain group and the rights of ALL people are not being taken into consideration. And the perception is that the "government" (elected officials) are biased towards the "christian" groups.Your argument is true in one sense, but not exactly correct in another sense. The Constitution promises freedom of religion and that Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The states at the writing of the Constitution had the right to have any religion as an official state church. There was an established Christian (Congregationalist) church in Connecticut until 1818 and in Massachusetts until 1833, which is nearly fifty years after the Constitution was ratified. There was no Supreme Court decision that disestablished these churches. A new state constitution in Connecticut removed it. The Massachusetts Constitution still provides that there could be support of Protestant churches. The Constitution deals with the national government and religion, but not the state governments.
Regardless of what you believe I think one of the hypocrisy's of right wing Christian political theory is how they will argue that Jesus was not a socialist (i.e. - don't raise taxes to help the poor or make laws forcing us to act like Jesus) yet they have no problem with a law prohibiting gay sex (which was the way it was in many states) based upon Biblical teachings.
Taxes are forced not charity. Jesus preached charity. Socialists will claim anything to try to win the day. Jesus said " the poor will be with us always". Good LIE, err try.
It's that hypocrisy that I am confused about. What confuses me also is that these groups of fundamental Christians are so small in numbers and yet take much control of the nation. The USA has (in some areas) has an entire generation that was taught that ID is science?
Gays are only 2% of the nations population, and look what they are doing right now with regards to gay marriage, etc.
What are they doing that is infringing on you? Nothing. Nothing. They don't knock on your door and tell you what to think our do. How are they bothering you? They want equality. The small minority of fundamental christians are not looking for equality, they want much more than that and you know it.
I'm still confused (intelligent/educated) by the whole mess. And lately, I was really taken about because I remember whe JFK was elected, the country was in an uproar about his being Catholic -- "what's goona happen" -- and now, "oh, please give us a catholic and not a Mormon!" What diff does it make when religion has been behind or involved in every single war fought since the "white man" set foot on this land. Forget it. Separation? Nope - never gonna happen --especially since some churches are richer than our country, yet pay no taxes. Now that's separation--wrong kind
Thanks an awesome point Teylina. Religious organizations are exempt, and the money the Vatican must rake in! Don't get me started. I think Christ himself wanted to get rid of the pomp and status in religion, make it something more personal.
I think it feels like the wall is coming down yet look at the fact of gay rights. What I believe is happening is that the gasp of Christianity is sounding like a wall coming down when in fact it is a belief system that is being marginalized on some level. They are losing on the matter of homosexuality. The book clearly defines it as a sin yet homosexuality is on the verge of being declared normal human behavior. So you are hearing the gasps of a sect in the throes of total confusion. The sexual revolution of the 60's is culminating in this last frontier when gay rights wil be fully implemented.
I was a member of a pretty mainstream run of the mill Presbyterian Church (not even close to fundamentalism) here in Austin, Texas and the confusion over the matter of gay rights led the church to hold several seminars about the teaching of the Bible concerning homosexuality. The conclusion was that the Bible held it to be a sin but everyone was frustrated with trying to defend a belief that painted them as bigots and backward. Nobody within the church knows how to come out and formally declare that a sin as defined by the Bible is no longer a sin. They don't believe they have the right to say that. So it's almost as if the Church must adopt a "don't ask don't tell" policy on their beliefs while gays are out of the closet completely.I'm glad you wrote this post, Suburban Poet. Legally, there IS separation of church and state. But you are right, political correctness has become a baseball bat that is beating people into submission with the threat of being called bigots. Standing up for what you believe to be right does not make you a bigot. Gays want you to think that, but it is not true. You and your church members have the right to believe as you like. Never forget that.
Yes it does make you a bigot. The bible also condones slavery, rape and murder. The moral values of people 2000 years ago must be questioned today. The USA held slaves longer than any other nation using the bible as justification. You are trying to do the same with homosexuality. As I said before, Gays don't knock on your door and ask you to join them. They are people just like you. They didn't ask to be gay, just like you (most likely) didn't ask to be heterosexual.
The United States was not anywhere near the last nation to abolish slavery. Slavery still exists today (and not in the underground sort of way) in the African nation of Mauritania. Here's a link that talks about it: http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.c … uritania/.
Also, the United States was not even the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to end slavery. Brazil had slavery for some time after the US ended slavery. Brazil ended slavery in 1888. You act as though Christians are the only people who have ever had slavery. The institution was common in the African world, the Muslim world, and the Asian world, as well as the European world. Please note that this is not in any way meant to condone slavery, but merely meant to point out that the USA was actually ahead of some nations in ending slavery, though racial discrimination continues into the present.Well, I guess I stand corrected. I was merely stated that scripture was used as a defence against abolishing slavery, just as it is used to fight against gay rights. We can't use a 2000 year old book to give us our moral compass. We should now better.
Read http://rad-man.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-g … -the-Bible
Thanks for the agreement, kuttingzedge (forget sp? - sorry). You hit the nail on the head when your comment brought us back to Jesus' time on earth. He scathed the pompous religious rules of his time, yet made it clear that one reason was not just their hold on those in need of spiritual guidance, but they mingled with the
"money-changers" (commerce) and tried to keep people in the pomp and ceremony of the cleric. As for sin: I'm in there with SP, but how can we legitimately (religious or political) say being gay is a sin, yet ignore the fact that in the Bible it is no more a sin that adultery or immorality of any kind with one not married to that person? Duh. Been a mess for years. Won't change till divine intervention--not necessarily referring to a later "coming of Christ." I'm not fundamentalist either, just aware. Church, State, Commerce? Sounds like a boiling cauldron to me!Just so you can see how integrated Christianity and the belief in God was in America back before we were all born I'm posting Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address. The rhetoric used by today's politicians has much precedent in our history:
At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is fewer occasions for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to these four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war -- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both party’s deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern half part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said f[our] three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations.
[Endorsed by Lincoln:]
Original manuscript of second Inaugural presented to Major John Hay.
A. Lincoln
April 10, 1865Simply BELIEVING something makes you who you are. Expressing that feeling at every opportunity makes you a bigot, in this sense Rad Man. I like meat, but I don't hold rally to condemn vegans, and visa versa. As people we can believe whatever the hell we want, if the next guy doesn't like it he can kick rocks. Imposing your beliefs on others is the point.
I've delved into a lot of history, and I really appreciate your taking the time to write this second piece. But, in this country or not, before we born or not (some of us had dinosaurs for pets--according to my younger grandson), Christianity (as some call it--Gandhi said he wouldn't be a Christian because he had read of "the Christ and he wouldn't act like that," far as I can tell there has never been any separation of church and state. Yes, "we" came to this country supposedly to get away from the marriage of church and state, but immediately began the same thing here! Debates will continue: schools, elections, etc. no matter what.
All of this will come to a head when the first atheist/non-religious person is elected to the Presidency.
Yet, will bigotry against the non-religious keep this from happening?It could happen but not if the atheist says everyone who believes in God is an idiot and I've found very few athiests who can resist....
There may be some atheists who attack others.
However, from the execution of Socrates, to Jesus, to the various "Crusades" waged by the Catholic Church, and even to the treatment of many Protestants toward JFK, bountiful examples of dominant society attacks towards those considered "undesirable" without any justification exist.
I read the b.s. chain emails that continue to circulate using "conservative Christianity" to attack Obama for being a Muslim, or for being "not really a Christian"...
Being non-religious, I have no axe to grind, and no ancient verses to justify or "bring to reality".....
However, think of the "abomination", the "sacrilege", the "blasphemy" of this "Christian Nation" being headed by someone who is "godless"....who "has no faith".....supposedly (and incorrectly) synonymous with "moral character" and "integrity".
I agree that if the atheist is a bigot against the religious communities, he/she will not get elected.....but something tells me that there is already enough bigotry that will be thrown against such a candidate that they will be hard-pressed to compete.
With this said, I hope it does happen some day. The beliefs and rights of non-religious and atheist American citizens are just as tangible and actual as those who have god or gods. There is an American Dream and United States without the "divine" or deity.I understand many of the arguments raised by true atheists. I also think they do have an uphill battle in terms of being President given the difficulties faced by people who do believe in a God if it isn't just the perfect set of beliefs (Mormons, Catholics etc).... The problem for atheists is that you have Christians on both sides of the aisle so you have to tread lightly but in the end I'd say the Democratic Party might be able to bring one forth but the Republicans would go on the attack. No doubt about it. And it would be a cynical attempt to demonize the atheist and they would probably compare this hypothetical candidate to Stalin, Mao and any other historical leader of a communist country.
This one of the things that differentiate the USA and Canada. Canadians have a strong separation of church and state. They don't really care what religion a candidate is party to, and don't generally care about their spouse or family. Canada does not consider itself a melting pot. They call it a mosaic.
Do you think the melting pot idea in terms of culture is bad or an obsolete term so to speak for the US?
Well, It's not working. Interesting that American's are split on wether there is even supposed to be a separation of church and state. Is the USA a christian nation? If we have a separation and laws protecting all citizens regardless of race for religion then we are not a christian nation. Vatican City is a Christian nation. The republicans ask for the christian vote by opposing abortion, but have no christian values at all. Republicans want the poor to fend for themselves, clearly not the christian way or christ like at all. Very confusing.
The melting pot was destroyed by laws written to prevent that melting. English only laws for example would force melting. Before about 60 years ago people came here to become Americans, Now they come here to change America into what they were running away from.
I have to wonder if you are getting the real idea of the melting pot. It doesn't mean that you melt down diversity in order to pour us all into the same molds. It means that diversities all merge to create a truly unique society. Like with the natural world, the more difference are present within an environment, the more likely it is to thrive. Conformity leads to stagnation.
I want the immigrants to keep their customs and beliefs. With each unique individual comes a unique viewpoint. When all those viewpoints merge together you usually get the best possible outcome for EVERYONE instead of maintaining status quo so the carbon copies can be comfortable.
Actually, Gusser..reality is not what you make it out to be.
There would have been no need for civil rights if minority populations had been allowed to fully and freely participate in this nation.
It is the denial of reality that you illustrate that causes the destruction...It's a complex situation. My tather's family is from Cuba. My grandmother never learned English. I think they all missed the home land and they very much kept their culture intact here in the US. I think it is natural for a person to do this because of a longing for their homeland. But that would be first generation immigrants. My children are full-fledged into the American culture as the Cuban one has been diluted by my mother and their mother (both Anglo). But they are also white looking and have no discrimination issues so they easily assimulate.
Now to your point of minorities and civil rights. I think you are correct that because they were not given full access and in fact were treated as slaves and as inferiors that they were forced to find something for themselves and that was their own culture. You cannot truly melt if you are not allowed into the pot at all....No country can survive allowing "minorities" from another country to come in an change the host country. That is fact.
"Survive"......your use of this word is troubling to me.
The generalization you are making is equally disturbing.
I suppose, in your mind, U.S. "survival" hinged on denying all Americans G.I. Bill and other veteran perks after World War 2? The "fabric of America" was at stake in terms of equal pay for equal work and equal access, regardless of color, religion, or gender? "White Only" kept this nation "alive"?
Prior to Hernandez v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court), Mexican-Americans (in many states, including Texas) were considered unfit for jury duty. They "lacked" the mental capacity and understanding of rule of law to serve....or so the logic went. I guess, in your mind, such ideas kept the U.S. safe?
I think many people carry about fantasies about what this nation was like prior to civil rights legislation.The US was at it's peak just after WWII. Your open borders & minority rights have taken this nation down in stature since that time.
Actually, the borders were way more open before WWII than they are now. In the 1800s, as long as you weren't Chinese, you were welcome. They were even able to come before the Chinese Exclusion Act. Many people were concerned that they were taking jobs by working for less, which is ironic considering that now American companies build factories in China so that they can get people to work for less.
One of the reasons that the American Revolution was able to get off the ground was because so many of the people living in the 13 colonies had origins other than England, so they did not have any allegiance to George III. There were many people of German, Dutch, French, Scots-Irish, and Scottish origin, and many of them did not speak English, especially in the more diverse middle colonies like New York or Pennsylvania.
Some interesting things about the post-WWII period that bear pointing out. I will agree that America was at a peak. Previously in this thread, you complained about taxes. The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 90%. Also, union membership was at its highest level in American history. These are points that people often forget.
The U.S. was at A peak after World War 2...because of, not in spite of, minority populations.
Mexican Braceros were being brought in to work in American fields and on the railroads. The United States would be a much less important nation without its transcontinental rail infrastructure...largely built on the backs of "those darn Chinese"...and shall we recount how they were treated?
The stupidity of American policy and American popular attitudes towards the Chinese specifically is recounted over and over again....
But the stupidity of American immigration policy during the 19th and early 20th centuries was even more ridiculous.
We bring in men to work...we force them to live separately, pay them less, and treat them like garbage. It was against the law for Chinese men to associate with "white" women, but yet Chinese women were not authorized to come to the U.S. legally.... I wonder what happened as a result?
In Gusser's mind, the Chinese diaspora has damaged the United States.. Their holding on to their language, identity, and customs bring the U.S. down...
Going back to Gusser's post, however, the economic peak that the U.S. experienced had nothing to do with what is being discussed, at least not in support of any claim Gusser has tried to make.You are certainly allowed to state foolish ideas. But it is undisputable that the American Zenith was in the 1950's both in economics and military might. Try moving to China and changing their culture. Buy life insurance first.
You'd make a good candidate for elected office.........or not.
You can try to shift the discussion to avoid eating your own words....but unless you delete your original post, nothing will be hidden.
Your point about the condition of the U.S. in the 50's is irrelevant, and not factually based outside of "white" Americans.
In fact, for the World War 2 veterans of Japanese, Mexican, and African descent (not to deny other groups), they watched their white counterparts go to college on the tax-payer (meaning that non-white tax-payers were subsidizing white only privilege), they saw new suburban neighborhoods with the "white only" exception expand with more tax-payer money to get those white vets and their young families into tax-payer built homes (more non-white tax-payer payment for white privilege).
Shall we then discuss the Japanese-American vets who came home to families in detention camps and lost-government plundered land? Where did the land go? White industrialists..... This represents non-white tax-payer dollars being used to take land from non-whites just to be given to whites for their own profit. The land around the current City of Industry in Los Angeles represents exactly what I am talking about.. Look it up.
Those like Gusser have a lot of history to learn.Not at all....the whirlwind of perception is spinning your wheels too rapidly perhaps.
What are you running from? Your comments perhaps? Learning? I don't know.Gusser's fallacy number 1:
"The melting pot was destroyed by laws written to prevent that melting. English only laws for example would force melting. Before about 60 years ago people came here to become Americans, Now they come here to change America into what they were running away from."
Gusser's fallacy number 2:
"No country can survive allowing "minorities" from another country to come in an change the host country. That is fact."
I read your posts, Gusser, and I keep hearing that Black-Eyed Peas' song..."runnin runnin...and runnin runnin" Runnin' away from your words....it won't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqV7DB8Iwg
I think you should follow the Peas' advice Gusser.
I was waiting for you to pull the "lib"/"liberal" epithet card.....really? Is that how you try to win your points? How pathetic.Nor can you tell your arse from a hole in the ground.
Related Discussions
- 11
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
by JP Carlos 12 years ago
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?Many policies and bills being passed by the government seem to encrouch on religious beliefs. Also, the church has been very active in the state's affairs (at least here in the Philippines). Is the separtion of church and state still...
- 25
The Truth about The Separation of Church and State
by Mick Menous 9 years ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:“No law shall be passed...
- 17
Separation of Church and State?
by Dwayne Smith 9 years ago
Separation of Church and State?Separation of Church and State is a hot topic currently, but to me, the trend seems to focus on things like the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in public buildings, yet religious state laws, like alcohol on Sundays, for instance, are rarely mentioned or...
- 55
What Is So Hard To Understand Separation of Church and State?
by Dan Harmon 9 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the same right. Unfortunately a court case resulted in the school board...
- 74
The Separation Of Church & State - The Law & The Bible
by Ben Bush 6 years ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?Do you know...
- 1698
The belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved!
by ElSeductor 9 years ago
Why must religious people impose their beliefs on others? Why can't religious people keep religion out of politics? Why must Muslims kill others over their beliefs? Why can't Christians keep their beliefs out of politics and out of schools?