ad nauseum

I don't think it means what many believe it does.
Besides, why don't the heroic freedom fighters for gay marriage "separate" their beliefs from some poor bastard who just doesn't want to do gay wedding cakes?  Hell no, just enlist the State to bludgeon the person who feels called to be faithful.

Vary polarizing incident that is not winning homosexuals any friends.

You might be right, but you'll have to backtrack a century to untangle that one.  No, I think they are enjoying having their noses and other appendages in our business at this point.

On the other hand, homosexuals had better hope that Christianity continues to be a force in American politics.  I'm pretty sure that ISIS types won't hold an internet debate about the separation theory.  I think we are F'd now, just by a differing group of heathens.

That may sound crude to the ears of babes, but it is very insightful.  

I'm pro-abortion (which is different than pro-choice).  It is the truly fiscally conservative position.  Abortions are cheap and they should be basically near free.  Compare to the cost of a live birth.  Then figure what it costs to raise a child from birth through K-12.  And make no mistake about it virtually all fetuses that are aborted would be supported by welfare.  And most of them would in turn become welfare parents of the next generation of deadbeats sucking at the teat of the government and paid for by YOUR TAXES.  Humans are not exactly endangered species...  in fact we are grossly overpopulating this planet and we'd be better off if there were a couple billion less humans using up food, air, oil and other finite resources.  Of course birth control would be better since it is cheaper still...  but the people who end up needing abortions are generally too irresponsible and/or just plaiin stupid for that to be realistic.  If I had my way people would have to get a license to have children so that only people who are vetted as being capable parents would be allowed.  Most of the 3rd world and countries like India and China would have very strict rules about how many children were allowed.  China already does that, but their population is still wayyyyy too high.

Anyway, I know from previous experience that this opinion will be highly unpopular around here not just because it is very much against the traditional and/or xtian positions...  But think about it and think about what the US would be like if the "Free $#!+ Army" people disappeared over the next two generations and the flood gates of uneducated scum from other countries quit pouring across our borders?  What would it be like if only people who could afford to properly feed, clothe and educate their children had them?

Wow...so in summary, you think if someone is orphaned, they're worthless to society? You are seriously screwed in the head.
 

Apples and Avacadoes comparison.  Orphaned is completely different than someone who doesn't want a child enough they are willing to abort it.  I'm saying that children born to parents that can't properly raise them have everything stacked against them.  Look at the ghetoes we have full of scum breeding more scum. It is like rats or cockroaches only we are feeding the vermin with our tax dollars.

A real lover of freedom, this.. The onion peels itself, revealing...

Do you have children?

The liberal retards that hate Christianity, and love the Muslims (like NObama and most of the left) will find a real problem, in many Muslims countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia) it is legal to stone to death gays in fact the 'morality police' enforce it. They even stone to death women that commit adultery.

Once the vacuum is created the vulture Muslims swoop right in, the country will be run under Sharia Law.

Double plus un good wrong!

Again, study HISTORY....not the shit you are spoon fed by public union employees-

https://books.google.com/books?id=LdorAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=god+himself+lexington+concord&source=bl&ots=jJYgydce8h&sig=44CORIs53YO-3ETeADJTqMkoqo0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sHKaVZWULNHHogSLlYHIAg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=god%20himself%20lexington%20concord&f=false

Actually, you might be on to something here.

In addition to a license to have kids,
we should have some kind of screening of couples to make sure they are healthy and possess genetic traits we want to propagate.

We could also do away with Social Security and medicare,
instead of raising the retirement age, we could just snuff people when they reach 65 or stop paying taxes (for whatever reason.... old, lazy, disabled).

Rid ourselves of the human debris, balance the budget,

and if we set up incinerators, we could use the heat to create electricity.

It's so logical, wonder why no one has thought of this or something similar?

Yes, because birth control and abortion are the same as genocide.  Sure, whatever Godwin law loser.

Which is why, in Littleton Massachusetts the patriots fired muskets through the door of the preachers home when that preacher refused to support the rebellion. If you ever make it up there the house is still standing on King street (somewhere around 600, though I don't recall the exact address at this point), though the door is now on display in the Littleton Historical Society's museum, also on King street.

I'm not sure how much I trust a book written 150 years after the fact.

If you actually study HISTORY of that battle you'd find almost all of the first hand accounts varied radically over time based on who was telling the story and what they were trying to accomplish. The regulars said the evil colonists shot first, the patriots said the evil regulars shot first, and a hundred years later the story is that everyone at the battle was waving a US flag with the heroic patriots chanting "USA! USA!" at the baby-eating soldiers.

According to Webster:
genocide
     noun geno·cide \'je-n?-?sid
: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group

So yea, I think killing babies based on how you feel about their potential worth is genocide.
-and-
You seem to like the Communist Chinese approach, they just don't seem to go quite far enough?

There were certainly individual preachers who came out against the Revolution, but given that the population was split into thirds- for revolution, against and undecided, that's not surprising. But you cannot say that the clergy as a whole were against the Revolution, it's simply not true. Pastor Jonas Clark was present on the Lexington Green with his parishioners when the first shots were fired.

http://www.fightingpatriot.com/jonas%20clark.htm

http://www.theamericanview.com/patriots-in-the-pulpit-series-jonas-clark/

http://providencefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Battle-of-Lexington.pdf


As far as the book being written 150 years later, there are many sources that document the fact that Pastor Emerson was present at Concord on the day of the fight, he or course died while on military campaign serving as a chaplain during the Revolution. Here is his contemporaneous account of the events of Concord-

http://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/education/upload/Rev.%20Emerson.pdf

The contemporary records are replete with similar examples of Pastors and Clergy, being recognized leaders in their various communities, supporting and participating in the Revolution on the side of the Patriots.

  The only difference is one disposes of the child before it's born, the other afterwards. Either way, it's irresponsible adults not taking responsibility for their sexual endeavors. And either way you are still seriously screwed in the head.
  Wouldn't it be ironic if some day when YOU'RE old and can no longer physically contribute to society that someone "aborted" the remainder of your life?

Someone's got s Margaret Sanger poster in their room, I'll bet.

Big difference.



Yeah, and those abstinence programs are doing so well.  If someone is irresponsible then they've got to pay the consequences.  The taxpayer shouldn't be burdened for the cost of a live birth plus 18 years of feeding, clothing and educating a child that probably will be a net negative to society when an abortion is a much, much cheaper way to solve the problem.  Sure, if they can get it adopted that would be fine, but a lot of the babies that would be aborted would not be adoptable because of problems like fetal alcohol syndome, crack/meth addition, birth defects, etc...  or just because they are the wrong color, etc.  The main thing is some people just don't deserve to be parents if they can't adequately care for a child.  Being aborted is probably preferable to growing up under the conditions a lot of these kids do.



You're free to think that, but you are the one who is being completely irrational.



Wow, so now you are jumping from abortion to forced euthanasia for the elderly?  One does not lead to the other.  Can't make your point within the parameters of the conversation so you just make up stuff about your opponent's argument to suit your whim...  that's called a straw man, BTW.

You are mistaking "The Church" in the greater sense with the pastor over a single house of worship, singular pastors don't direct the Church's affairs.  The Church of England is led by a single individual, just like the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is led by the Pope.  The Church of England is led by the Supreme Governor.  The Supreme Govenor of The Church of England is the active ruling monarch of the crown.  It has been this way ince King Henry the VIII couldn't get an anulment of his marriage and declared himself such in 1534.  So during the revolution, if we were listening to 'The Church' we would be listening to the King of England.  

Something tells me he wasn't advocating revolution.

Individual pastors have always had more sway over their LOCAL congregation than a Synod, Pope, Governor etc...They are usually a reflection of the views and concerns of their local congregation- otherwise they don't last there very long...Truly religious people generally are looking for very specific things in a pastor and if he's not giving it to them- answering their concerns, preaching in a way that makes sense to them and is consistent with their values and understanding of Scripture and doctrine, they will fire him or go to another Church.....

A large number of the religious leaders ON THE GROUND in the American Revolution were in favor of the patriot cause. Not only that but you have to remember that many of the people who were rebelling, were never members of the Church of England- that is why they came to America in the first place. Ben Franklin was a Quaker. Paul Reveres' parents came because they were French Huguenots etc....There were huge number of Scotch Irish- the Overmountain Men in particular who won the spectacular victory at Kings Mountain that were Presbyterians and Baptists.

http://thelibrary.org/lochist/periodicals/wrv/v4/n4/s71i.htm

Ok, after reading this reply, and re-reading a few of your others I think I'm seeing the disconnect.  Answer me one question before I go into what I'm seeing:

Are you protestant?  Probably Baptist?  This is important (and kind of goes to the root of the argument for separation of Church and State).

Protestant. Lutheran actually.

Got it!  Now everything you are saying fits in context and makes sense.  I can now speak more directly to you.  I'm not a theologist, or classically educated in religion, I want to get that out up front.  I born, raised, and married in the Catholic church, but have been saved in the Baptist church as well and spent 10 years going to Methodist churches too (yes, as an adolescent my mother took me to 3 Churches on Sunday, I must have been a handful...no, she was just an organist and played the organ for all those denominations).  

Now some level setting - Nobody has ever (EVER!) claimed that there is a separation of religion and State.  Only that there is a separation of Church and State.  The wording is key here.  Even if you read Thomas Jefferson you can get confused, because he mentions a separation of Church and State on many occasions.  But on several occasions he also mentions how his faith guided his particular decision.  So what's going on here?

The same thing going on in this thread...a miss-understanding of the word 'THE Church'.  In the protestant religions there is no singular leader, no singular source of direction.  There is a religion, and each pastor does their best to impart the religion into the lives of their congregation.  That's why even in Baptists, there is a huge difference between different parishes at times.  

This is different in The Catholic Church,  and The Church of England.  It all goes back to how Catholicism was formed. I'll let you read up on the history of the Papacy if you want, but just suffice to say, in The Catholic Church, there has always been a singular leader.  That leader essentially communes with God directly, the only one in The Church to do so.  He actually hears the Lord speak directly to him.  You can disagree (I'm sure you do, as you are a different faith), but that is the key to this whole thing.  The Pope communes with the Lord and develops a vision of how The Catholic Church will operate and every Priest then takes that direction and they alter their individual parishes to adhere to the vision.

Therefore when people refer to 'The Catholic Church', they are not referring to their local parish.  They are referring to either The Pope, or the Vatican.  If they refer to their parish, they will say, "St. Mary's Catholic Church"...not "The Church".  This is key.

At the time of the revolution 8 of the 13 colonies had an official religion, The Church of England.  There were other religions in existence too, and they had houses of worship (their Churches).  This church, like The Catholic Church, had a singular leader providing direction.  The King of England.  Now Henry the VIII had some historically memorable issues with The Church, and he caused a huge breakup.  But one thing he did when he created his new church, The Church of England, was he kept the single head of The Church like the Catholics have.  He then placed himself in that position.

So when you look at the words as defined above, separation of Church and State means something completely different from what you have been saying.  We are not separating the State from our religious beliefs.  We are separating our State from direct influence from outside leaders.  The Pope, the King of England, the Ayatollah, the Dalai Lama.

This entire thing is why there was such a fear of JFK being President.  They feared that because he was Catholic, and The Pope told him to do things, that The Pope would be a defacto leader of the United States (read up on that one).  Protestants never posed this threat because there isn't a singular leader of the Lutheran Church, or the Baptists, etc.  

It's a subtle difference, but key.

Fair enough. The Founders certainly would not have been in favor of such a religious figure as the Pope or King leading the nation from outside, agreed.....But, there can be no doubt that most of them considered the country a Christian nation and expected it's citizens to be guided by those principals in their governance decisions. The model they came up with is based around a Christian society with largely shared values and understandings.

Now we are on the same page.  The founders were not ignorant people, they were very well educated, worldly people.  I'm sure that many of them were very aware of the many different religions in existance.  Hence the first amendment.  And while we may be able to mentally seperate ourselves from the leadership of these different religions ("The Church"), we can never remove our faith and beliefs from our debates.  I'm pretty sure they decided that as long as we realized that there was room for every faith, and as long as we had fair representation of the populace, then our leaders would be forced to find common ground when drafting legislation.  Therefore I have to believe they foresaw the laws of the land evolving.

Do I agree with the way this law has evolved?  No, quite frankly it agitates me.  But I don't feel my religion was/is infringed upon.  There's going to be sociatal fall out for sure, but then again any major legislation has that as a consequence.  And is the fight over?  Not if you don't want it to be.  But it will require you usurping the SCOTUS, which means getting a Constitutional Amendment put forth that re-defines marriage yet again.  Incredibly difficult, but if there are enough people that back you then that's the next step.

If you feel that strongly on the subject, lead the charge.  The history books are full of quotes like, 'Mr. So-and-so, a relatively unkown person from, xyz location, came out of nowhere and did this incredible thing.".  Be that person.  As for me, it's not my hill to die on.  I'd rather put my efforts into a cut cap and balance amendment...  But that's me...I'm secure in my faith and in my Church.

Now we are on the same page.  The founders were not ignorant people, they were very well educated, worldly people.  I'm sure that many of them were very aware of the many different religions in existance.  Hence the first amendment.  And while we may be able to mentally seperate ourselves from the leadership of these different religions ("The Church"), we can never remove our faith and beliefs from our debates.  I'm pretty sure they decided that as long as we realized that there was room for every faith, and as long as we had fair representation of the populace, then our leaders would be forced to find common ground when drafting legislation.  Therefore I have to believe they foresaw the laws of the land evolving.

Do I agree with the way this law has evolved?  No, quite frankly it agitates me.  But I don't feel my religion was/is infringed upon.  There's going to be sociatal fall out for sure, but then again any major legislation has that as a consequence.  And is the fight over?  Not if you don't want it to be.  But it will require you usurping the SCOTUS, which means getting a Constitutional Amendment put forth that re-defines marriage yet again.  Incredibly difficult, but if there are enough people that back you then that's the next step.

If you feel that strongly on the subject, lead the charge.  The history books are full of quotes like, 'Mr. So-and-so, a relatively unkown person from, xyz location, came out of nowhere and did this incredible thing.".  Be that person.  As for me, it's not my hill to die on.  I'd rather put my efforts into a cut cap and balance amendment...  But that's me...I'm secure in my faith and in my Church.