![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
He said "Separating church and state. That's what allowed the government to shit all over everyones rights" or something along those lines. A god's existence or non-existence is irrelevant; all that's needed is a correlation of rights after the separation of church and state---easily done.
@IRS: Okay, done. What's next? | ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
|
|||
|
Even removing the God portion of the statement, the basic premise is still there.
There's no reason to get caught up in semantics or on the simple fact its a religious statement in origin. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
Heh, Lanor. When a group has been sitting silent for 4 hours aside from the pull messages, I get bored, try to start a conversation. Didn't realize you were annoyed; sorry. I find food is usually a good random conversation starter; everyone loves food.
Proving certain things: Hasbin is right if he specifically said that, but I think the wording was more around the premise that "Separation of church and state led to a loss of rights," and while using the language of god, that argument is still counterable, by demonstrating a correlation of rights after the separation of church and state. As I did. That being said, I agree that god is a weak premise in a modern context. | ||
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|