Seperation of Church and State...! Jefferson style!

[WinterBorn]

Try google, loser.

No need. The national cathedral is not a gov't entity nor does it receive any gov't funding. So it does not apply to this discussion.

No one has made any claim that the US Constitution says we should limit people's access to the church of their choice.

And BTW, the insult means I won this debate.

 

[DamnYankee]

A simple statement of fact. I didn't realize that you were so sensitive. Have you got your answers yet?

 

[WinterBorn]

A simple statement of fact. I didn't realize that you were so sensitive. Have you got your answers yet?

Don't need them. It does not really matter. I was pointing out the fallacy of your statement. Whether there have been funerals held there for nonchristian dignitaries or not does not change the fact that the national cathedral is not a gov't entity.

 

[DamnYankee]

So you asked questions where the answers have no relevance to your argument, then claim that wins a debate for you.

 

[WinterBorn]

A simple statement of fact. I didn't realize that you were so sensitive.

YOur insult did not bother me at all. I just thought I would claim victory in the same way that you have done.

Your rules, so you should have no problem abiding by them?

 

[DamnYankee]

Zing!

 

[WinterBorn]

So you asked questions where the answers have no relevance to your argument, then claim that wins a debate for you.

It was in response to your statement that elected officials have attended services there and dignitaries have had funerals there. As if that had any bearing on the discussion.


The national cathedral is not a gov't entity and receives no gov't funding. Nothing that happens there has any bearing on the discussion. No one has said that access to churches is unconstitutional.



And yes, I did claim victory using your own rules.

 

[WinterBorn]

Zing!

That was what you call a zing?

 

[WinterBorn]

So you asked questions where the answers have no relevance to your argument, then claim that wins a debate for you.

No, I did not claim that my question won the debate. It was your insult that won the debate for me.

That is your rule, SM.

 

[DamnYankee]

I didn't realize that you were so sensitive.

 

[NOVA]

And the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that any gov't recognition of a single religion is unconstitutional.

Yeah, and therein lies the problem....a SCOTUS thats fucked up.....a SCOTUS that adds some imaginary concept to what is a very simple Constitutional amendment....

No where does the Constitution say that at all
-----------------------
Congress shall make no law......thats clear enough
respecting the establishment of religion....?

respecting= concerning

the establishment=either the action of establishing or being established (establishing) or the subject of (establishment of religion)

 

[Jarod]

Respecting in that context means making any law that includes even partially an establishment of a religion. The founders did not want the Federal government to have an official religion nor to have the ability to restrict from you a right to practice the religion of your choice, to assemble in congregation or protest, to petition the government, or to restrict your speech...

This is what I read about this from what the founders wrote.

Agreed!

 

[Jarod]

An unconstitutional church:

False, it is not owned by any particular religen.

 

[Jarod]

But there's no national temple....

If you want to collect private money and build one, you can!

 

[DamnYankee]

False, it is not owned by any particular religen.

On January 6, 1893, Congress granted a charter (incorporation papers) to the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia, allowing it to establish a cathedral and institutions of higher learning. Signed by President Benjamin Harrison, this charter is the birth certificate of Washington National Cathedral.

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/timeline.shtml

 

[Jarod]

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/timeline.shtml

Again, it is still not owned by any particular religen.... Its not promoting any particular religen...

If the Jews cant get the same deal, okay Id say its violative of the Constitution.

If the athists or Pagans want a building they should also get the same deal.

 

[WinterBorn]

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/timeline.shtml

From the site you linked:

"The official name of Washington National Cathedral is the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul."

"The total cost of building the Cathedral was $65 million, all of which was raised through private donations. "




So this church has no bearing on the discussion. It is not part of any gov't entity and is not even officially a national church.

 

[Socrtease]

Dude, why would you have a non-Christian display during the Christmas holiday?

Because it is also the time of Jewish, Pagan and African reglious holidays and if someone put a Samhain display on your towns city hall lawn, with its pentagrams and other goddess related imagery you would scream your catholic head off.

 

[Jarod]

From the site you linked:

"The official name of Washington National Cathedral is the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul."

"The total cost of building the Cathedral was $65 million, all of which was raised through private donations. "




So this church has no bearing on the discussion. It is not part of any gov't entity and is not even officially a national church.

Next paper tiger of an argument?

 

[Socrtease]

So the birth of a Savior is on par with Kwanza?

Here is exhibit one in the case that people of this ilk ONLY believe that relgious freedom applies to majority religious views. Because MORE people believe that jesus was some sort of savior it is ok for public funds and property to be used to promote the birth of some poor jewish kid, but not the festival of lights, known as Hannukka, or for the Kwanza celebration and goddess forbid if the Wiccans were allowed to put up a yule or Samhain display.