This post is probably the last of a debate that I had with (what appears to be) atheists who claim to be champions of the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State. One can only show so much patience before the obvious becomes clear and one has to move on. Remember the participant who calls himself yahweh, solely to ridicule and insult believers? I unpack him in this post.
I will post the final presentation on the separation of Church and State in the next post. That ought to illustrate my perception of the problem, its threats and hopefully the solution as I see it.
The disappointment level of the collective intellectual depth of this group is certainly rising and you accuse me of not reading your posts? I only missed Albatross’ gender.
Not once did I comment on a preference or otherwise for Christianity or Judaism, or any other religion for that matter and yet you posted stock answers and inaccuracies about the subject matter that smells of intellectual dishonesty. Really, people. You should be able to do better than that. If you had said you were high-school dropouts, I would have understood some of your ignorance, but you bragged about your two decades of study and prowess in constitutional law. And you have this to show for that?
I pointed to the fact that you ignore the significance that a religious institution’s form of government holds for a civil government. I posted statements that anyone can look up and verify if you were not so locked up in your own thought-inbreeding.
Looking at a religious institution’s form of government would show several things:
1) That religious beliefs in general are the primary influence of civil governments.
2) Drilling down point #1 above: religious institutions with theocratic forms of government are the primary threat to civil governments.
3) That a theocratic form of government is identifiable by a hierarchical structure, i.e. some are more or less worthy in the religious institution that others.
4) That the U.S. constitution has neutered the natural tendency of most of the theocratic religious institutions, which operate in the U.S., to threaten the civil government. This means we have nothing to fear from theocratic religious institutions such as the RCC or the Church of England as long as the separation of church and state is vigorously pursued.
5) That it is pointless quoting the Framers in opposition to or support of the separation of church and state unless we recognize the real threat to the separation of church and state.
6) Since religious institutions are the direction from where an attack on the civil government will most likely be launched again, it behooves the protectors to recognize the enemy and discern the signs of imminent mobilization. Failure to do so, as you do in your drunken stupor of self satisfaction, is suicide.
There are many more REAL threats to the separation of church and state, which is evident and in your face, but your haughtiness blinds you to the realities of those threats.
I pointed out that yahweh’s derision of Christians, which he gleefully repeats as often as he can, is just a charade and cover for a personal vendetta.
He calls himself a champion of the protection of church and state, which cannot be further from the truth; he is rather a saboteur of the constitution deriding fellow Americans under the cover of the First Amendment while the First Amendment protects him only from being prosecuted for his utterances. The First Amendment doesn’t protect him against the exposure of his foul character and covert intentions to poison the constitution. If it were not so, he wouldn’t have displayed such great pleasure in assuring that the most foul language is used to describe the dearest treasures of fellow Americans. So much for E Pluribus Unum in his understanding of the U.S. constitution.
He has no clue what a Christian or a Jew is and is even more clueless how to identify a hypocrite from a true Christian or Jew, yet, the insults and derision of a people whom he doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know is his banner-speak.
If he had any inkling of knowledge about the people whom he derides, he would have known that taking for himself the name of the God for whom these people are willing to die, even for the mere mention of that name they are willing to be burned alive, he would have realized they are not in the least offended by his particular abuse of that name.
He would have realized that the people who revere that name know their God intimately and a cheap fake like him is a joke because the followers of the God with that name have an Olympic-style fitness recognizing real threats and dangers from infinitely more sophisticated enemies than him. All he has accomplished was to expose his inadequacies and flawed character, which is evident in his reasoning, too. That is far more profound seen in the light of his profession being a champion for the constitution.
I tried to point you to the real threats of your stated cause, showing an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, making the complex simple and easy to comprehend, and you respond like fools who are kicking stones in a sewer not minding one bit the stench that surrounds you.
I don’t mind debating anyone but fools tax a person’s patience. Perhaps the saying, “don’t argue with fools because bystanders would not be able to tell the difference” is aptly applicable here. Craig, I must admit, attempted to engage in a debate.
Are you really as intellectually bankrupt as your postings suggest? If that’s the case and the separation of church and state depends on you, it is in serious jeopardy.
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him well.
Now I wish to move on.