LGBTQ

[Fred's Myth]

Revisionist history on your part. Is there no mention of a separation of church and state?

None of the Founders believed in the complete and total separation of religion and government. The phrase many Americans use to describe religious freedom, “separation of church and state” is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It comes from an 1802 letter by President Thomas Jefferson. As president, he allowed buildings used by the War and Treasury departments to be used for religious services (the Capitol and Supreme Court chambers were used as well), yet he described the First Amendment as building “a wall of separation between church and state.” Handout A: The Establishment Clause: How Separate Are Church and State? (Background Essay) - Bill of Rights Institute

@DriveInDriveOut called it, you are consistently wrong. Typical lib, facts are irrelevant to you.

 

[vantexan]

Revisionist history on your part. Is there no mention of a separation of church and state?

There's a mention that the government isn't to establish a relationship with a church that supersedes other churches. The Catholic Church wasn't going to be allowed to dominate and influence the government. Neither was the Church of England or any other. The Constitution never said you can't mention religion in schools and if you look at American history religious influence was prevalent until atheists sued and pushed it out. I don't see that improving American life.

 

[vantexan]

Not always depends on the reason, not every homophobe is the same.

I believe you're a fundamentalist.

 

[El Correcto]

None of the Founders believed in the complete and total separation of religion and government. The phrase many Americans use to describe religious freedom, “separation of church and state” is not found in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It comes from an 1802 letter by President Thomas Jefferson. As president, he allowed buildings used by the War and Treasury departments to be used for religious services (the Capitol and Supreme Court chambers were used as well), yet he described the First Amendment as building “a wall of separation between church and state.” Handout A: The Establishment Clause: How Separate Are Church and State? (Background Essay) - Bill of Rights Institute

@DriveInDriveOut called it, you are consistently wrong. Typical lib, facts are irrelevant to you.

Facts are irrelevant to you too, Christian.

There's a mention that the government isn't to establish a relationship with a church that supersedes other churches. The Catholic Church wasn't going to be allowed to dominate and influence the government. Neither was the Church of England or any other. The Constitution never said you can't mention religion in schools and if you look at American history religious influence was prevalent until atheists sued and pushed it out. I don't see that improving American life.

Mostly was Jews and spiritual weirdos who sued over it. One was described as an atheist, but he went on record saying he wasn’t one and was Jewish.

I believe you're a fundamentalist.

Sort of I guess, but I change my mind on things when presented sufficient evidence. You on the other hand, lol.

 

[El Correcto]

I've never said that I accept the teachings and demands of the gender ideology cult. I said I'm perfectly fine with gays and lesbians. So I don't know what you're saying that I'm back to square one on.

The idea that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man is a fantasy.

Sorry it’s longer than a fundamentalist Christian Matt Walsh tweet confirming your biases against trans people.

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[vantexan]

Facts are irrelevant to you too, Christian.

Mostly was Jews and spiritual weirdos who sued over it. One was described as an atheist, but he went on record saying he wasn’t one and was Jewish.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

 

[Box Ox]

Sorry it’s longer than a fundamentalist Christian Matt Walsh tweet confirming your biases against trans people.

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Just more self-justifying smokescreen nonsense from the gender identity cult.

Edit: Check out the author's Twitter page. Where this is coming from is crystal clear.

 

[UnionStrong]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

Burning in Hell as we speak.

 

[El Correcto]

Just more self-justifying smokescreen nonsense from the gender identity cult.

Edit: Check out the author's Twitter page. Where this is coming from is crystal clear.

Who cares? Are you so transphobic you won’t even read what they have to say about the science and instantly dismiss it.
Look at the arguments you are employing at ask yourself how did you arrive at a lack of belief in god or gods, how are you arriving at this current belief you are defending?

Opinion: Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity

Evidence from various sciences reveals that there are diverse ways of being male, female, or both. An anthropologist argues that embracing these truths will help humans flourish.

www.the-scientist.com

Here I found you another article this time from a cis(hope the “slur” doesn’t offend you)gender man.

 

[El Correcto]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

And?
That’s not the case that decided this.

 

[vantexan]

And?
That’s not the case that decided this.

You have no idea how big a deal her suit was when I was a kid.

 

[El Correcto]

You have no idea how big a deal her suit was when I was a kid.

Sounds like a wonderful woman. But atheists can’t take credit for this sadly.

 

[El Correcto]

You have no idea how big a deal her suit was when I was a kid.

This honestly gave me a bit of perspective on why reading your opinions on science or homosexuals is like visiting a museum.

 

[vantexan]

Sounds like a wonderful woman. But atheists can’t take credit for this sadly.

Her specific lawsuit got prayer and the Bible out of schools. Your problem is you think history started when you discovered your pee pee.

 

[El Correcto]

Her specific lawsuit got prayer and the Bible out of schools. Your problem is you think history started when you discovered your pee pee.

Your problem is you’re wrong about what case determined this.
Her case reaffirmed a previous ruling.
Those schools were already breaking the law when she sued them because this had already been legally settled which is why she sued them probably.

 

[vantexan]

Your problem is you’re wrong about what case determined this.
Her case reaffirmed a previous ruling.
Those schools were already breaking the law when she sued them because this had already been legally settled which is why she sued them probably.

If it was legally settled then she wouldn't have had to sue.

 

[El Correcto]

If it was legally settled then she wouldn't have had to sue.

Engel v. Vitale | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Engel v. Vitale

constitutioncenter.org

They were still establishing religious practices in schools, this case is the case that started it and the case her suit relied on.

It was a 6-1 ruling.

 

[El Correcto]

I guess we are just gonna have to “disagree” about it… lol

 

[vantexan]

I guess we are just gonna have to “disagree” about it… lol

Some day when you're in your 60's some 20 something is going to call you a fossil and tell you nothing you did in your 20's was as good as what people in his generation do. It's coming, wait and see.

 

[MrFedEx]

There's a mention that the government isn't to establish a relationship with a church that supersedes other churches. The Catholic Church wasn't going to be allowed to dominate and influence the government. Neither was the Church of England or any other. The Constitution never said you can't mention religion in schools and if you look at American history religious influence was prevalent until atheists sued and pushed it out. I don't see that improving American life.

It's clear that the intent was to have a separation. Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As usual, you've decided on a fundamentalist "interpretation" of a legal concept that is crystal clear.