What's the matter with George Washington making this kind of speech. Didn't he ever hear of " Separation of Church and State?

Umm.... yeah, I'm sure he did. Yet, he also believed in supporting a nation with the separation of church and state. What's so confusing to you?

Nothing is confusing to me. Take your question up with " progressives " who object to it. My title was a sarcastic one based on their confusion - not mine.

Seems to me that progressives believe in the separation of church and state, just like Washington. Your meme is suggesting Washington did not believe in such things when he obviously did, regardless of whatever quote you can find.

It seems to me that they don’t - as their most recent responses to language such as Washington is using here in modern times will clearly attest. Apparently you’re taking the question on the top oh the meme seriously. It’s being asked in sarcasm from a progressive’s point of view. Washington believed in Separation of church & state - just not in the same way progressives in modern times do.

Don't be to sure, because Washington never did.

The "Separation between church & state" confusion comes from a letter written by Jefferson in January 1, 1802.

The Founding Fathers supported ALL of the United 13 Nations of America adopting their own religion if they so wished.
The First Amendment's prohibition was against the establishment of religion by Congress at the Federal level. In other words, the intent was to PROTECT, not prevent, the right of States to have their own state religion, as some did.

The ACTUAL wording is right there.

“Don't be to sure, because Washington never did.”

I'm completely sure. Are you actually telling me in honesty that modern progressives would approve of Washington's above statement as not a violation of their view of the establishment clause? Come on now – let's be honest here. You're aware of the various lawsuits in the land regarding this topic.

“The "Separation between church & state" confusion comes from a letter written by Jefferson in January 1, 1802. “

There's no confusion at all. It was a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists which has long been a staple in progressive arguments for Church state separation. However, if you read the full letter it has nothing to do with their views - and everything to do with religious liberty – and I”m not talking about the multicultural view of it our founders rejected and you're implying, either. Our founders war with the Barbury Powers and Muslims is proof of this.

“The Founding Fathers supported ALL of the United 13 Nations of America adopting their own religion if they so wished.”

This is true. They were big supporters of states rights. What's this have to do with the current topic?

“The First Amendment's prohibition was against the establishment of religion by Congress at the Federal level. In other words, the intent was to PROTECT, not prevent, the right of States to have their own state religion, as some did.”

I agree. How is any of this relevant to the progressive view which would vehemently dismiss a statement such as Washington's above as a violation of this clause. Also, this is only one of his statements about religion being the underpinnings of government in his farewell address. Here is another below.

“Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion “

“The ACTUAL wording is right there.”

It sure it. However, I'm not seeing how your interpretation of that wording is relevant to the current topic of discussion when contrasted with what Washington himself has said. Perhaps you can clue me in. You are apparently making deductions and assumptions about the text which I'm not.

I'm on the run, so I skimmed through, no time to address all you said, but theyre seems to be some confusion on your part regarding what I said, so for clarification:

OP meme title:

🔘 "What's the matter with George Washington making this kind of speech. Didn't he ever hear of " Separation of Church and State?

What my reply was to:

🔘 "SPatoine2 ups, 1d, 2 replies
Umm.... yeah, I'm sure he did. Yet, he also believed in supporting a nation with the separation of church and state. What's so confusing to you?"

I wasn't tellin you in honesty or dishonesty about modern progressives approving or not about whatever because I couldn't care less.

Here's what you do:
1. Go back to my reply
2. Blackout my name and pretend you don't think you know me
3. Reread
4. Proceed, if you will, onto someone else arguing AGAINST your point rather than with someone (AKA me) you wish to argue with about it even though they are in agreement with you.

This site I swear. Always good for a laugh.

Cheers.

leftrightleftrightleftrightleftrightleftrightlelalala la lalala la

You're going to have to be more coherent. You seem to be trying to hard to be funny and slick. You're neither, but perhaps it's just a cultural thing in Europe I"m not getting.

Stop acting like you're retarded.

You are acting, eh, Vlady?

btw, What time you got there in "Nouva Yorkovska"? Oh, don't tell me, you just got up to meme the cows, nyet?

there*

"You're aware of the various lawsuits in the land regarding this topic."

p-ethics religion and society, Dr Hittinger, Fordham University c.1985.
Studied it extensively for a semester, I did.
He's in Arizona now, I believe. Dude's a genius, and funny as heck in a nice dry way.
Look him up. Read his stuff, you'll be glad I did (Note to self, do likewise).

And yes, I am way rusty. But from Creche scenes in public parks is to Christmas trees in Seattle's airport to Amish having to put orange traingle reflectors on their carriages and whatever other Supreme Court cases re: the war on religion, we covered it all.

Ok then. You wanted to impress me with what you know but did not concede to the fact that your knowledge should have you knowing that modern progressives do not hold the same view as George Washington in regards to the establishment clause.

Vlady keeps repeating the same bot lines.

You truly ARE retarded.
R-E-A-D what I said till it sinks in, you raging imbecile.

triangle*

c. 1991 - 92*

"You are apparently making deductions and assumptions about the text which I'm not."

No, fella,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

^ This will suffice.
I ain't got time for either of you barking monkies' constipated need to reword everything so it can fit a silly party line agenda.

There, was that the argument you wished for? You have earned your pay well.

Humans. What a waste of cranial space.

Yes, fella - You in fact are. Reposting the First Amendment does nothing to reconcile the fact that George Washington and modern progressives do not hold the same view of the establishment clause. You're typing a lot of stuff to try to impress somebody, but you're not really saying anything relevant to the topic here.

Indeed they can be. However, that claim would require an argument to support that position and an objective standard by which to determine the value term " wrong "

Not “Who” but what. That would be the law of non-contradiction.

If wrong is subjective - two people can hold completely contradictory viewpoints on the same topic - such as George Washington's above statement being wrong - for example - and one would be equally as valid as the other. This would be a violation of the law of of non-contradiction.

Which is completely irrelevant. Them viewing them as " wrong " and them being wrong are entirely separate issues. Two people holding opposing viewpoints on an issue being wrong or right doesn't argue for wrong being subjective, it argues for them holding opposing viewpoints or not having objective standards by which to determine wrong. A name applied indiscriminately to everything designates nothing. Value terms are not an ice-cream menu at an ice-cream stand where you can arbitrarily pick what you like and leave what you don't.

“ Back to the earlier comment, if you say Washington was correct when he said that, and you believe there's an objective standard for determining that, what is the objective standard and how do you know it's the right one? “

God the bible and Jesus Christ are the objective standard – which is what Washington believed. How I know this because the bible is God's word.

Now, I think it's pretty fair to assume you would want an argument for that claim – which I have. However, Providing an argument and you being persuaded of it are separate issues and only something God can perform in you.

The bible says that you and all men already know God exists through general revelation through his created order, but suppress that in unrighteousness. That is to say – do it so you can live the way you want.

Does that mean right now you're saying in your mind “ Oh boy, I sure hope this guy doesn't figure out I'm lying and really believe in God? “

No, it's more along the lines of what Sigmund Freud talked about in regards to psychological suppression. You are pushing down that which you do not want to acknowledge. Kinda the same way an an adult may push down a painful childhood memory – which often surfaces and manifests itself in all kinds of ways.

So the statement "Even great men can be wrong" was stated as merely your opinion?

Ahh, ok.

"Octavia_Melody

"Wrong" is subjective, because different people view different things as wrong. Some people view smoking marijuana as wrong and others don't. Some people view eating meat as wrong and others don't."