Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
pesky facts

Abbeville, GA

#23576 Aug 29, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Brilliant.
WHERE DID THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" ORIGINATE?
The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptists' complaints that Connecticut's law was oppressive to their religion (among other things, Connecticut's law allowed towns to levy taxes for the support of a religion designated by the majority of voters; since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, the law effectively forced Baptists throughout the state to support Congregational churches). The Baptists, who knew of Jefferson's advocacy of separation, "honored [Jefferson] as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like [Jefferson's] bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109).
While Jefferson was powerless to change Connecticut's law (the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states), Jefferson used the occasion to express his belief that no such law could be implemented on the federal level. Observed Jefferson:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Separationists have long taken Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment. Indeed, we take the metaphor so seriously that we are sometimes accused of worshipping Jefferson, as if the only reason we think the Constitution requires the separation of church and state is because Jefferson wrote his letter. But this is nonsense; the history of the Constitution and the First Amendment is well documented, and it suggests beyond doubt that the framers wanted to put as much distance between government and religion as possible. Jefferson's metaphor is simply a handy way of stating the obvious. If Jefferson had never written his letter, we would still be defending the wall, since the wall exists in the Constitution itself.
pesky facts

Abbeville, GA

#23577 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
A coalition of demos and repubs????????
Not only does Obama need a muzzle put on him, a set of Irons would suffice for his ruination of America.
"Wary of another war, congressional Republicans and Democrats pressed President Barack Obama to explain why the U.S. military should attack Syria and involve Americans in a deadly civil conflict that has roiled the Mideast."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/United-State...
High ranking Repugs have been calling for action in Syria for months!!! Wake up, its daylight outside and your dark mind needs a break. I personally think we should do nothing, but you are wrong trying to make this about Obama, it ain't.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23578 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
So explain how else one is to interpret "that you may CAUSE him to do thus. "
==========
"But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness."
You've got to be kidding....

You provide no references to this disagreement so that others might judge its context..

But leaving that aside, let's examine the quote in question...

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."

"Do for one who may do for you,"
sounds just like
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

"that you may cause him thus to do."
If you treat a stranger (others) as you would expect to be treated, you might cause the stranger to treat you as expected.

The second half of the statement looks like a re-statement of the first half.

Interestingly, this has also been examined in Game Theory where it has been shown that an extension of cooperation (treatment of others) leads to gains for both players.

An example of this can be found in the movie Jeremiah Johnson, where Will Greer gives the advice to cut and stack firewood on the judith for the steamboat, leave a pouch so the Captain can pay you. Which is little different than the payment can left at the unattended fruit stand on the country road.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23579 Aug 29, 2013
And the rotten fruit didn't fall far from the rotten tree.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23580 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
BTW,
"Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction."
Your sentence is not an expression of empathy dummy. It is a projection of your stupidity.
Quite the contrary, I can understand the feelings you must have in trying to sort through the jumble of disjointed thoughts running around inside your head.

You see, as a child, we had a game called Pick Up Sticks, and that jumble of sticks at the start of the game is exactly like the logic exhibited in your postings.

I can easily imagine the frustration you must experience everyday, and I truly hope you find help for your affliction.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23581 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, I can understand the feelings you must have in trying to sort through the jumble of disjointed thoughts running around inside your head.
You see, as a child, we had a game called Pick Up Sticks, and that jumble of sticks at the start of the game is exactly like the logic exhibited in your postings.
I can easily imagine the frustration you must experience everyday, and I truly hope you find help for your affliction.

Well now, since your ideas keep getting blown away is no reason to get all huffy and puffy. Of course some would call you a sore loser, not me, I just say loser with a a capital L on your forehead.

You libroids make it too easy for us conservatives, since you make mince meat of word meanings and concepts of thought. Logic is not your strong suit, neither is word meanings or concepts. You are however good at getting beat up on and thrashed about.
Have a happy clueless day!


Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23582 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to be kidding....
You provide no references to this disagreement so that others might judge its context..
But leaving that aside, let's examine the quote in question...
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."
"Do for one who may do for you,"
sounds just like
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
"that you may cause him thus to do."
If you treat a stranger (others) as you would expect to be treated, you might cause the stranger to treat you as expected.
The second half of the statement looks like a re-statement of the first half.
Interestingly, this has also been examined in Game Theory where it has been shown that an extension of cooperation (treatment of others) leads to gains for both players.
An example of this can be found in the movie Jeremiah Johnson, where Will Greer gives the advice to cut and stack firewood on the judith for the steamboat, leave a pouch so the Captain can pay you. Which is little different than the payment can left at the unattended fruit stand on the country road.
You really need to stop straining so hard to try and make the motivations behind the phrases equivalent. They are not and anyone reading the two SHOULD readily see the difference.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23583 Aug 29, 2013
pesky facts wrote:
<quoted text>
WHERE DID THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" ORIGINATE?
The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptists' complaints that Connecticut's law was oppressive to their religion (among other things, Connecticut's law allowed towns to levy taxes for the support of a religion designated by the majority of voters; since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, the law effectively forced Baptists throughout the state to support Congregational churches). The Baptists, who knew of Jefferson's advocacy of separation, "honored [Jefferson] as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like [Jefferson's] bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109).
While Jefferson was powerless to change Connecticut's law (the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states), Jefferson used the occasion to express his belief that no such law could be implemented on the federal level. Observed Jefferson:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Separationists have long taken Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment. Indeed, we take the metaphor so seriously that we are sometimes accused of worshipping Jefferson, as if the only reason we think the Constitution requires the separation of church and state is because Jefferson wrote his letter. But this is nonsense; the history of the Constitution and the First Amendment is well documented, and it suggests beyond doubt that the framers wanted to put as much distance between government and religion as possible. Jefferson's metaphor is simply a handy way of stating the obvious. If Jefferson had never written his letter, we would still be defending the wall, since the wall exists in the Constitution itself.
There is a huge difference between not establishing a state religion and "putting as much distance between government and religion as possible". That is the "taken to extremes" position that the Left tries so hard to justify. One need merely look at the writing of other Founders so know that that position is about as far from their intent as it is possible to get.
Your statement that "the wall exists in the Constitution itself" is completely ridiculous and ignores the
very next statement in the 1st Amendment that states there shall be nothing "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#23584 Aug 29, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
How's it feel to have helped get 5,000 American troops killed in the sands of Mid-East to make America's enemies and Muslim extremists stronger than ever ?
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
How's it feel to have taken our country from a balanced budget under rational Democrats to a $1,400,000,000,000.00 annual budget deficit under Right Wing Wacko Bush.
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
What about having indebted our nation $6,000,000,000,000.00 on wars in the MidEast to strengthen Saudi Arabia - the country responsible for 09/11 ?
Muslim terrorists around the world say thank you Right Wingers - you're our biggest allies.
Does that make you feel the slightest bit guilty ?
As for Me....
I can live with watching:
- the Bush deficit cut in half;
- the troops coming home from Right Wing Wacko wars;
- the American economic system saved;
- the Bush Great Recession conquered;
- the rescue of the American automobile industry saved;
- the American banking system saved;
- the end of freeloading deadbeat insurance system.
Yep...
I can live with my choice because I have a conscience. You can live with yours because you don't.
Just more of your delusional lies, I'm sure. Say bye bye. The guys with the white jackets are coming for you.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23585 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
You really need to stop straining so hard to try and make the motivations behind the phrases equivalent. They are not and anyone reading the two SHOULD readily see the difference.
You are too funny...

First you indicate that there is disagreement, now you declare that there is none.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
there is some dispute

some scholars

the usually agreed upon translation

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#23586 Aug 29, 2013
Obama's Affordable Care Act Looking a Bit Unaffordable

For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy ...

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#23587 Aug 29, 2013
The percentage of Americans who have a job or are looking for one, known as the labor force participation rate (LFPR), has plunged to a 34-year low.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23589 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too funny...
First you indicate that there is disagreement, now you declare that there is none.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
there is some dispute
some scholars
the usually agreed upon translation
Ummm, this is my post to which you are responding:

"You really need to stop straining so hard to try and make the motivations behind the phrases equivalent. They are not and anyone reading the two SHOULD readily see the difference."

And you are now claiming that I am saying there is no disagreement. Do you know what "equivalent" means?
Or are you arguing with the translation - yes, I stated that some scholars believe the translation is very strained to come up with anything approaching a "golden rule" parallel. However, conceding that such a (somewhat) similar adage exists, I used the translation that is commonly used.
This is the translation you used: "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." It still contains the motivation of "do something to get something" rather than "do something because it is what you would wish done". One has a selfish motivation, one has an empathetic motivation - which I believe is a term you have recently used in regard to this discussion.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#23590 Aug 29, 2013
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
While I am just working on a Veterinary degree, I do find myself talking with horses, dogs and cats. I find that they make much more sense than you and I.O. When I want to discuss politics, I just walk to the rearmost portion of the horse and speak to you directly.
+1 Thank you for the best laugh of the day (so far).

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23591 Aug 29, 2013
pesky facts wrote:
<quoted text>
High ranking Repugs have been calling for action in Syria for months!!! Wake up, its daylight outside and your dark mind needs a break. I personally think we should do nothing, but you are wrong trying to make this about Obama, it ain't.
The last time I checked, President Obama was still President of the U.S. and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. How about lighting a little match to put some light on that!

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23592 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for this submission which confirms the findings of the study. You've been a tremendous help.
So when are you going to buy my bridge?

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23593 Aug 29, 2013
Damn, if they can get $15.00 an hour for flipping burgers, I am coming out of Retirement and going to work at my neighborhood Burger King.
The Unions have a lot of stupid people to work with but all that is going to happen is fast food business's are going to close or these employees are going to lose their jobs. That will leave many of those ignorant, unskilled employees out of work. Let them shuffle around in the unemployment lines awhile and see just how much they like that. They will soon see how much the unions will pay and support them since they lost their jobs. Nope, will not happen.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23594 Aug 29, 2013

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#23595 Aug 29, 2013
To all my liberal Global Warming believers out there. That especially means I.O. and Oh My.
This is the latest report that should put sink stoppers in your mouths.
I am laughing so hard right now that I can barely contain myself. My you people look like gullible fools. BTW I still have that bridge for sale.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23596 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
This is the translation you used: "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." It still contains the motivation of "do something to get something" rather than "do something because it is what you would wish done". One has a selfish motivation, one has an empathetic motivation - which I believe is a term you have recently used in regard to this discussion.
I suspect that you are serious...

So let's see,
"Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

is somehow different from

"Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you."

Looks to me like each phrase is a statement of "do something to get something", the only difference being the use of cause and wish.

Do something = be civil to others

Get something = civility from others

In either case, your action (extending cooperation, civility) is not a guarantee that an equal reaction will result, regardless of whether you think your efforts will CAUSE the desired result, or that you WISH for the desired result.

Would you like to go around again?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 9 min River Tam 101,187
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr AMERICAN SUNSHINE 265,274
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 3 hr Johnny R 109,649
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 5 hr RDC Cadiz 761
Election Who do you support for Governor in Minnesota in... (Oct '10) Tue Frank 860
Election VA Property Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disab... (Oct '10) Tue tell no lies 1,380
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) Mon Juan Carlos 83,972
More from around the web