Separation of Church and State

[rational experiences]

Christianity is not American. Native Indian is. DNA country origin.

English history removed the church into a non Roman status. Self hierarchy.

Introduced new variations to the Roman teachings.

Migration to America was from England.

 

[metis]

Didn't the state throw out public school led prayer? Do you think the church liked that? Or when the state forbad teaching creationism in science class, is that what would have happened if the state and church were independent of one another. No.

Actually, yes.

School prayer is a reflection of religion whereas the 1st Amendment posits that we don't have a state religion; and "creationism" is a religious concept.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Didn't the state throw out public school led prayer? Do you think the church liked that? Or when the state forbad teaching creationism in science class, is that what would have happened if the state and church were independent of one another. No.

Actually, yes. School prayer is a reflection of religion whereas the 1st Amendment posits that we don't have a state religion; and "creationism" is a religious concept.

I don't get your point. I asked three questions. What is your yes a yes to? Just what are you agreeing and disagreeing with, and how does your comment address it?

Are you suggesting that the church would respect the Constitution's authority if it were an option not to? Is that what your yes means? The church inserted state-led prayer into schools when it could with the assistance of fellow theocrats in government, and it was the same constitution then.

 

[metis]

Just what are you agreeing and disagreeing with, and how does your comment address it?

The first & last, thus not the 2nd.

Are you suggesting that the church would respect the Constitution's authority if it were an option not to?

Some possibly would nowadays.

The church inserted state-led prayer into schools when it could with the assistance of fellow theocrats in government, and it was the same constitution then.

Yep, and that was unfortunate. The challenge for the courts has long been dealing with interpretations and applications, and that same battle continues today.

Sorry that I was so brief, but I have to boogey-out again.

 

[rational experiences]

The bible is sciences own history book of causes.

Men who built science changed earth and heavens.

So it was a pertinent advice.

Meditative brain entrainment against irradiated human behaviour was a medical healer communal assessment. Prayer was a part of the routine.

To be thankful grateful for life still existing.

England went to holy wars to stop temple of science rebuilding. As new star fall irradiation changed the mind behaviour of men. Who had agreed no science.

Involved the church changes in england.

Based on what men of spiritual wisdom knew against sciences possession.

The history stone masons. America non religious but spiritual. From England.

Seems you failed your order also as you allowed nuclear science.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I don't get your point. I asked three questions. What is your yes a yes to? Just what are you agreeing and disagreeing with, and how does your comment address it?

Are you suggesting that the church would respect the Constitution's authority if it were an option not to? Is that what your yes means? The church inserted state-led prayer into schools when it could with the assistance of fellow theocrats in government, and it was the same constitution then.

Who is "the church"? Which church? Do you support the right of every religion to present itself in a mandatory school setting?

 

[rational experiences]

The church was built first as humans medical healing building.

Its founding rock not to change again. No man is God a scientific human relativity teaching.

Book review case closed. It was legal. Oath sworn to only tell truth.

Medical and legal association of the past.

The temple pyramid was humans science and technology proven the destroyer of life.

Hence science by medical conditions was taught was not acceptable as human.practice choice or false teaching. As historic what did it mean.

Which is not in any way involved in ritual.

 

[Father Heathen]

OK... we disagree. The cake woman didn't mind making the cake... just didn't want to be forced to say things that violate her religious beliefs to which I agree but agree with Denny's

If you agree with one but not the other, then explain the difference.

 

[Kenny]

If you agree with one but not the other, then explain the difference.

The baker is required to write things that are contrary to one's faith (but you can still bake them a cake). The one serving food can serve food. Writing down an order of what to eat doesn't violate one's faith. I thought that was pretty clear cut.

 

[Father Heathen]

The baker is required to write things that are contrary to one's faith (but you can still bake them a cake). The one serving food can serve food. Writing down an order of what to eat doesn't violate one's faith. I thought that was pretty clear cut.

In both scenarios, both refuse to serve their customers based on a religious belief; the only difference is the product and the religion.
Keep in mind that dishonesty is a sin according to your faith. You can dodge a question, but can you dodge damnation?

 

[Kenny]

In both scenarios, both refuse to serve their customers based on a religious belief; the only difference is the product and the religion.
Keep in mind that dishonesty is a sin according to your faith. You can dodge a question, but can you dodge damnation?

You are too funny. I'm hooked up to Jesus and damnation isn't an issue. I have no condemnation and you aren't the judge either.

And the answer to the first part... won't hold up in court since it is apples and oranges not to mention I disagree.

 

[metis]

If a restaurant refuses to allow blacks in its restaurant, is that ethical? how about Jews? Amerindians?

When the baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple, isn't that pretty much the same? Since when is such discrimination moral? Just because a baker bakes a cake for a gay couple doesn't mean that (s)he's supporting gay causes.

Either the baker is serving the public or (s)he's not, and if they are then what's the problem with baking a cake? Is baking such a cake immoral? By which standards? "Guilt by association"?

This is America, not NAZI Germany. And, yes, I have opinions on some things.

 

[fantome profane]

The baker is required to write things that are contrary to one's faith (but you can still bake them a cake). The one serving food can serve food. Writing down an order of what to eat doesn't violate one's faith. I thought that was pretty clear cut.

So hypothetically if they rejected a customer based on their sexual orientation before even getting any details about the design of the cake they wanted that would be wrong.

If a someone ordered a plain (or fancy) vanilla cake with no writing the bakery could not refuse based only on who was going to eat the cake, or when and where they intend to serve it.

 

[Kenny]

So hypothetically if they rejected a customer based on their sexual orientation before even getting any details about the design of the cake they wanted that would be wrong.

If a someone ordered a plain (or fancy) vanilla cake with no writing the bakery could not refuse based only on who was going to eat the cake, or when and where they intend to serve it.

Apparently they had been customers before and had interactions with no problems...

If they had just ordered the cake... they would have baked, made, decorated any cake they wanted.

So, yes, if they had said no to them before they even ordered a plain cake, it would be a violation of law. IMV.