AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Why we have seperation of church and state

34 9690
emanon2
offline
emanon2
5 posts
Shepherd

We have it to protect us from nuts like this.
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

to see the source go to

We don't own Mexicans, we just make them work for minimum wage or less.

  • 34 Replies
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

This is a joke right? This person is mocking christians? Please tell me they're mocking christians.

devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

This is what happens when you mix drugs and the bible.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,139 posts
Farmer

This is a joke right? This person is mocking christians? Please tell me they're mocking christians.


Yes, it's a joke. This is one of the articles i've had the pleasure of reading before. It was in our paper a while back and made me spit my coffee in laughter. The author is a genius and one of my heroes.

Sure, he's making a dig at the difference in society today.

"Why we have separation of church and state". LOL. If you think church and state are totally separated, i'd like to live in your world.
ComradeWolf
offline
ComradeWolf
358 posts
Nomad

We should have an reverse inquisition. Nobody will expect the Anti theistic inquisition! 9+ points for Monty Python reference.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

This is a joke right? This person is mocking christians? Please tell me they're mocking christians.


Yes it's a mock. I've seen this list of questions elsewhere. It's to point out the cruelty found in God's laws.

... Those are all Jewish laws, not usually practiced by Christians...


Considering Jesus explicitly stated the laws still apply... Forget it, just pick your favorite piece of apologetic bs and get it over with.

1: Death on cross covers it.
2: Free will
3: God changed his mind.
4: OUT OF CONTEXT!
5: It's a metaphor
6: Only applies for the time.
7: Only the New Testament counts.
8: The Bible is like a buffet, you get to pick and choose.
9: LALALA... I'M NOT LISTENING!
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Too bad I don't really believe in God anymore


Woah wait what? Was this at least partially due to debates on these forums? I'd really like to have something to point to when we people state that these debates are pointless.
Zydrate
offline
Zydrate
383 posts
Farmer

There is no separation. All our presidents are religious so they'll appease them when they can.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Well, we don't have COMPLETE Separation of Church and State. It just prevents the religious from doing "acts or rituals" that are otherwise forbidden by federal and state law. Except when religion is inside federal and state law, you're kinda stuck until someone realizes how silly this is.

An example is "it's forbidden to sell alcohol on Sundays", at least in Indiana. People are always talking about improving the economy, even at the slightest, well look no further! More days to sell booze to those that wanna chill with their homies.

Noobclone
offline
Noobclone
127 posts
Peasant

The separation of church and state is figurative and shouldn't be literal. People need things to ground them selfs so they don't get to self-interested (and other reasons)

But yeah, I'm fairly sure the real intention behind separation of church and state is..:
When theology ruled politically and religiously it eventually became corrupt.
(church later reformed itself thou)
The power to change peoples lives with law and the power to sway their hearts/reasons to do things with religion was too much. Absolute power corrupts Absolutely, is the saying.

But doing such things as suing to take the ten commandments off a court house is meaningless and isn't even apart of the true intention of the separation.

And in my opinion looking at the ten commandments before facing a jury might get a person to think twice about lieing. and somesuch heh heh heh

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The separation of church and state is figurative and shouldn't be literal. People need things to ground them selfs so they don't get to self-interested (and other reasons)


Just because someone doesn't have a religion doesn't mean they aren't going to be "grounded" nor does having a religion mean they will be.

And in my opinion looking at the ten commandments before facing a jury might get a person to think twice about lieing. and somesuch heh heh heh


What if they aren't Christian? Even if they are it's likely not going to mean much at that point.

The problem is having things like the ten commandments at a court house is it's the government promoting one religion over another. By doing so we lose freedom of religion or if we so desire freedom from religion, which is the intent of the separation of church and state.
Noobclone
offline
Noobclone
127 posts
Peasant

I obviously wasn't saying that MageGrayWolf don't put words in meh mouth.

By that statement I was trying to imply about the morals some religions but forth being good for society and the basis of many laws to begin with. People shouldn't ignore or forget that.


Even if the people who look at the tablets aren't Christian they know what it means when they see it. Very few people are ignorant of the Ten Commandments. They may second guess themselves when they see it, and how they got into this predicament to begin with. and somesuch

There is no problem with having the ten commandments at a courthouse because it isn't promoting one religion over another.

It's more of a historical aspect of the basis of law. A statement of how religion was used to restore order in a 'troubled' time. Like the 'Law' does now.
and~

No, I contradict that. The intent of 'separation of church and state' is not freedom of/from religion. The 'separation of church and state' is not in any law (nor should it be). Nor do we lose any freedom of any sort in the Ten Commandments being visible. I think that very notion is silly.

The literal intent of one of the amendments in the bill of rights is freedom to choose your own religion, as you know.

Choosing to chose none is practically choosing one in itself, almost anyway.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I obviously wasn't saying that MageGrayWolf don't put words in meh mouth.


It wasn't clear and actually given your further explanation I'm not sure if it's still all that obvious.

By that statement I was trying to imply about the morals some religions but forth being good for society and the basis of many laws to begin with. People shouldn't ignore or forget that.


Religions aren't needed for that we can base the laws not on whether it's moral or not, but whether it's beneficial to the society. This is where such laws come from rather then religion.

Even if the people who look at the tablets aren't Christian they know what it means when they see it. Very few people are ignorant of the Ten Commandments. They may second guess themselves when they see it, and how they got into this predicament to begin with.


This is still not going to play much if any influence on people and still totes one religion over others. There is no reason to have it any more than having any other religious tenants there.

There is no problem with having the ten commandments at a courthouse because it isn't promoting one religion over another.


Yes it is. One have the tenants of one religion being represented by the government and not others. You either have to have non or all to not be promoting one over the other.

It's more of a historical aspect of the basis of law. A statement of how religion was used to restore order in a 'troubled' time. Like the 'Law' does now.


Sorry but laws like don't kill, don't steal existed way before Christianity.

No, I contradict that. The intent of 'separation of church and state' is not freedom of/from religion. The 'separation of church and state' is not in any law (nor should it be).


"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." -Thomas Jefferson

Yes it is about freedom of/from religion.

Nor do we lose any freedom of any sort in the Ten Commandments being visible. I think that very notion is silly.


They don't have to be placed where the aren't visible, just off government property.

Choosing to chose none is practically choosing one in itself, almost anyway.


No more than choosing not to collect stamps is choosing a hobby.
Noobclone
offline
Noobclone
127 posts
Peasant

Ahem. You are spouting this why? Don't *bonk* me with your anti-religious views. Just as bad as bible bashing.

btw. "Religions aren't needed" is an anti religious statement.

You are nitpicking because you don't like my stance(s) or religion in general. I will demure my blunt opinion of that, but this is the last time I will converse with you about this.

I am not making any more posts in this thread conversing with MageGreyWolf.

This is still not going to play much if any influence on people and still totes one religion over others. There is no reason to have it any more than having any other religious tenants there.


Most religions play on guilt and fear as a motivation. Great authoritative slabs of doom would be thought provoking if seen though a discontented gaze, in my opinion.
It should be a metaphorical "understood 'you'", that not everyone would be effected drastically by it.

You didn't need to point what I quoted out; just as you didn't need to point out:
Just because someone doesn't have a religion doesn't mean they aren't going to be "grounded" nor does having a religion mean they will be

Nitpicking. Blah.

Sorry but laws like don't kill, don't steal existed way before Christianity.

Are you forgetting that theology of the Jews; that moses took the tablets of the Ten Commandments down from a specific mountain thousands of years before Christ was born.
Many historians use the Old Testament, or the original Jewish bible as a historical document. The Ten Commandments were one of the most cohesive and earliest forms of law in written history. Certainly not the earliest since other 'nations' existed before. Nonetheless a important part of history. It quite literally changed parts of the world.
^
but this is off topic isn't it..



"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." -Thomas Jefferson

Yes it is about freedom of/from religion.


You are misunderstanding that statement you bolded.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
He only means he intends the law and courts do not prohibit the practice of religion. That statement is literal and obvious. It says nothing about supporting the prohibiting of religion in any way.

Of course anything is subject to interpretation, but I believe it was literal.

Religions aren't needed for that we can base the laws not on whether it's moral or not, but whether it's beneficial to the society. This is where such laws come from rather then religion.

This is nitpicking, my opinion is my opinion and is not wrong. :/

Morals are the basis of society whether you like it or not in my opinion. Thinking, "killing someone is wrong" before thinking "don't do it, it's against the law" is having morals. People need these things to function in decision making. Many come from religions; accept that it's not a bad thing. You can learn from many beneficial concepts from religions regardless of whether or not you believe why you should 'learn' from them.

resistance for resistance sake is meaningless
ONE OF US <ok just kidding about the one of us thing lolz)


They don't have to be placed where the aren't visible, just off government property.

Nitpicking, how much must one clarify?

No more than choosing not to collect stamps is choosing a hobby.

I agree with the choosing part but not:
A religion is not comparable to a hobby.. It is a way of life. Please respect other peoples way of living when it doesn't contradict with the law.
Or did I misread your intention and just put words in your mouth?

Did you even make a post stating your views before dissecting others. I think not. What does that make you.

I wonder. imply, subtext, prior knowledge of Internet 'memes'

Next time don't display your views by targeting and nitpicking another persons post, please be respectful of another person's views. And make a post yourself explaining yours. Without quotes please, use your own words.

Thats mean I don't want to minimod you, but I'm sure if flagged your post would go unattended.
~sigh, or not I suppose..

Anywho I'm sorry, but I'm a little sensitive and got miffed at your targeted barrage at my post. I probably should have just ignored you especially considering what I just typed above.

Thats means I don't want to minimod you; but I'm not sure if flagged your post would get deleted..
so i'm gonna flag both yours and my posts and the op's post

e.g I want this offensive thread locked. I'm never going into a argument about religion here again sheesh
don't care if my arm pts get to 0 ok I do care a bit I guess..points are fun..
http://i.imgur.com/4kgRl.jpg

This isn't a joke thread it's targeted nitpicking of the Jewish/Christian faith
I thought the 'forums' was better than that guess I was wrong. I'm really fricking pissed bliehshoe
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

btw. "Religions aren't needed" is an anti religious statement.


It might have been, if his post didn't have the rest of the sentence after it.

Morals are the basis of society whether you like it or not in my opinion. Thinking, "killing someone is wrong" before thinking "don't do it, it's against the law" is having morals. People need these things to function in decision making. Many come from religions; accept that it's not a bad thing. You can learn from many beneficial concepts from religions regardless of whether or not you believe why you should 'learn' from them.


Its more likely morals are much older than religion is. They most likely come from early human history when we were nomads and everyone in the group had to work together. In such a life you can't have anyone do something that harms the group.

Next time don't display your views by targeting and nitpicking another persons post, please be respectful of another person's views.


He was, more so than you are. He was saying he thinks this way and put up evidence to back up his point. You said "you're wrong because I say so".
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Just as bad as bible bashing.


Let's agree to disagree. Bible bashers threaten you with eternal hellfire and tortue, pronounce for all to hear that you are a vile sinner and a follower of satan. How is that just as bad as saying "Religion is bad" or "Religion isn't needed."

Are you forgetting that theology of the Jews; that moses took the tablets of the Ten Commandments down from a specific mountain thousands of years before Christ was born.


I didn't see him claiming that laws/morals only appeared after Christ. The first record we have of laws and morals appearing in a society to benefit the whole was in Mesopotamia with eye for an eye laws. You steal = hand chopped, you kill someone = you die. Your house collapses on someone = someone in equal relation to that who you killed dies.

Morals are the basis of society whether you like it or not in my opinion.


Yes, they are, but morals are subject to change while religion is not.

Many come from religions; accept that it's not a bad thing.


Ask any 6-7 year old out there why killing is wrong, I can almost gurantee you they will not say, "Because god told us it was." They will say something like, "It's bad to do because it's mean" or "Hurting people is bad." Religion just takes credit for what we actually do and shove it off to some unseen god.

Next time don't display your views by targeting and nitpicking another persons post, please be respectful of another person's views.


You do realize that's what a debate is? Finding holes in the opponents argument and raising them to the light of day for all to see, then asserting your own claims?
Showing 1-15 of 34