Passenger killed by air marshall

Where did I refuse to translate? Is that why you call me incivil?

A while back your posted:

I provided evidence. You can't demand that everything is translated to English.

I take this as an implicit refusal. You didn't say "I refuse" but this sentence combined with 2 and a half pages of bickering should qualify.

Well, that and the fact that you have still failed to present your source in an understandable format.
 
Last edited:
We are. However, that wasn't my contention. My contention was that Bush, as the first action, implemented faith based initiatives, thereby destroying the barrier between church and state.
.

We are now officially in the world of woo.
 
We are. However, that wasn't my contention. My contention was that Bush, as the first action, implemented faith based initiatives, thereby destroying the barrier between church and state.

Evidence?

Make sure it's the kind that shows up blue and underlined, if you catch my drift.
 
I take this as an implicit refusal. You didn't say "I refuse" but this sentence combined with 2 and a half pages of bickering should qualify.

1 page ago, not 2.5.

Well, that and the fact that you have still failed to present your source in an understandable format.

I did present my source in an understandable format. Maybe not for you, though.

If you do not wish to be a member of the Church, you can opt out by contacting your local priest. If the opt-out is before 6 months after the date of registration at the National ID Register, the opt-out is in effect from this date.
 
1 page ago, not 2.5.

We are both wrong. More like 1.6. Ah well.


I did present my source in an understandable format. Maybe not for you, though.

Did you expect us all to know Danish? Why post it in a format that is useless to this forum? You were basically talking to yourself.

I'll grab my Enigma machine. My future posts will be in an understandable format. Maybe not for you though.
 
While I'm sure Claus will spin this, it is worth providing this for the rational among us:

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
 
Did you expect us all to know Danish? Why post it in a format that is useless to this forum? You were basically talking to yourself.

I'm the only Dane here? You sure need to look around a bit.

Not only that, you have to opt out. The assumption is that you want your money to go to the church. If it weren't a theocracy you would have to opt in.

Wrong.

If you're baptised, you become a member. So, it's basically the decision of your parents.
 
While I'm sure Claus will spin this, it is worth providing this for the rational among us:

The treaty you mention is an official government document. All treaties are.

The DOI is not. How could it be? There was no US government at the time.
 
I don't understand why Claus is trying to argue about the religiousity of the two governments on the basis of the documents, as it seems clear to me that on the basis of the documents themselves that Claus has no argument. Yes, the DOI says creator. But, there is also a prohibition against passsing laws establishing religion. At best, I'd call that a wash.

Denmark, on the other hand, has a state religion built right in, supported by tax laws, with the head of state required to be a member of that religion. On the basis of the documents, there simply is no separation of Church and State.

So, if we go only by the documents, Denmark is by far the more "Christian Nation" than the United States.

I think that the far more interesting debate is the extent to which the Church has influence on the policy decisions and law making of each nation today as a practical matter, regardless of what the documents indicate. The documents may not reflect the practical reality. For example, in Canada, the Senate has a ton of power if you just look at the documents. On paper, it is quite an important body. In reality, it rarely exercises any of it as it lacks legitimacy, as it is primarily composed of patronage appointments.

I think that an argument can be made that Christian ideas and policies, especially those of the vocal Christian right wing, have a fair amount of influence in the United States, and in particular the current administration. So while the US is not a Christian Nation on paper, the fact that a majority of the population identify as Christian, and the power base of the current administration is predominantly Christian, one can say that Christianity has a fair amount of influence on government.

I have no knowledge of the practical politics of Denmark. It may be that the paper doesn't indicate the true modern practicalities of government. However, the fact that the Church is supported by tax dollars from the state and that over 60% of the population feel that the Church deserves special consideration in the constitution do present problems for any claim that Denmark is not a "Christian Nation".
 
I'm the only Dane here? You sure need to look around a bit.

Never said you were. But I'm pretty sure you are the only Dane one on this thread. When you present an argument to an audience, you are obliged to present it in a way they understand. No?

Wrong.

If you're baptised, you become a member. So, it's basically the decision of your parents.

Even worse. The government is mixed up in the minutia of worthless religious rituals. Are you familiar with the Lemon test? This would qualify as "excessive entanglement" for sure. It would never find its way into our "theocracy".
 
Last edited:
Never said you were. But I'm pretty sure you are the only Dane one on this thread.

(cough)

Did you expect us all to know Danish? Why post it in a format that is useless to this forum? You were basically talking to yourself.

"Never"?

When you present an argument to an audience, you are obliged to present it in a way they understand. No?

The audience here does not solely consist of English-speaking people.

When you present a grievance, you are obliged to present it in a truthful manner. No?

Even worse. The government is mixed up in the minutia of worthless religious rituals. Are you familiar with the Lemon test? This would qualify as "excessive entanglement" for sure. It would never find its way into our "theocracy".

What is the lemon test?
 

Back
Top Bottom