Enigma:

Ah, so you are indeed that thick. Confirmed for all times now.

Go to school you dullard.

Enigma:
1. Of course you cannot say, simply because you don't know. And I knew you didn't know from your display of monumental ignorance.

Retard, I presented you with an example. Atheists in congress don't need to say it. Or do you think they do?

Enigma:
2. And No, it is not and it is different from, the "no religious test" provision. I could teach you of course but on this occasion I will recommend that you go and ask the likes of Matt Dillahunty and/or the lawyers among your fellow militant atheists. I could recommend your only source of knowledge i.e. Wikipedia, only you will not know what to search for!

How hard is it for you to understand that requiring all office holders to say that actually is a religious test and for that very reason, the courts have said no one has to say the phrase? If you think you have information, present it. I always present you with places to go and learn you cretinous vegetable.

Enigma:
1. You are a shameless, patent and bold faced LIAR!

2. I was of course the first to make that point; indeed that was the point in my post that you misunderstood idiotically and challenged and which led you to this display of gross idiocy and monumental ignorance. Here is the link, read it again and maybe this time you will understand.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10921743

Give yourself a round of applause and tell me why you think that presidents saying it by convention somehow helps you.
Now you vegetable brain, are you not the one who posted this? Now do you think those in the military have to the phrase?

Enigma:
NO, you are lying shamelessly, again. Fact is that you have avoided answering the question because it would expose the sham that is your understanding of "separation of Church and State". You know it, I know it, and you know I know it.

I asked you this question and you ask me the same question? Are you a blockhead or are you just pretending?

Enigma:
1. That ignorance again! This is not a religious test and this is not "the religious test" issue.

2. It is not a case of anyone being forced to say "so help me God". That is why there is the alternative of an affirmation. The point which has escaped your thick skull is that any person taking the oath of office is obliged by law, in other words legally required to say "so help me God".

3. I am quite glad about this exchange because it shows just how thick, obtuse, ignorant and daft the militant/evangelical atheists really are despite the misconception that atheists are "intelligent".

You circus buffoon, making the phrase a legal requirement for taking office means it tests whether or not the person believes in a God.

Enigma:
1. Just admit you have no clue about the "separation of Church and State" that you were bandying about. Exactly the same thing about the way you were shouting "for First Amendment purposes" on another occasion that I exposed you as a dunce (remember that was where/when you got the name Mr. Dunce?).

2. At least I have given an explanation of "separation of Church and State" in a number of posts now. If you dare and you are not a coward, set out YOUR understanding of "separation of Church and State" for all to see.

It looks as if rather than going to study, you chose to keep playing with yourself.
If you're serious, you would have simply posted the links to where you think you presented an explanation of the separation of church and state.
You can go back to the thread you're referring to and read the usual rubbish you're well known for posting.
Anyway, I'm done with you. You're too much of a potato for me to continue teaching. You need to go back to the circus and continue with your acts since you're simply unteachable.
Anyway, your grade for this course is an F. I recommend that you go for summer coaching.

Enigma:

You see that you are a mumu now. You have such poor comprehension skills, you cannot grasp concepts.

As one poster once asked: "where ya brain dey, inside ya yansh"?


You really like that don't you? No wonder you find playing with yourself so exciting.


Let me give you a teaser (I won't go beyond the teaser because you are both a slow-learning and an ungrateful student).

Here is something the American Supreme Court said as far back as the 19th century.

Have you heard about the concept of murder? How about suicide? You see, this is why I said you really cannot handle complex ideas. No wonder you choose to keep playing with yourself.

I'll allow you to keep playing with yourself on this thread because I'm done with you. There are other students who are open to learning that I can meet.

Tutorial dismissed.
Grade: F
You are advised to repeat the course.

P.S: Choose another instructor because you are a vegetable.

Ah, Mr Dunce runs away ------ again as on about 4 or 5 previous threads now. NID of course.

It was e'er thus. The thick mumu always runs when he is exposed for the dumbass that he is despite his bluffing and pretensions to "intellectualism".

And of course he has once again been exposed to be a patent liar.

Look at what he said, when I informed him for the umpteenth time that the President is the only one not legally required to say "so help me God".

thehomer: . . . Oh? So the president has two heads or what? So other than the president, all others must swear to a God?

When the penny dropped for the mumu, after three days of learning from me what an intelligent person would have learned from my very first post on the point, the mumu pretends and LIES shamelessly.


Oh, and the mumu is now trying to wriggle again after being exposed once more for the dunce that he is in his statement that the courts do not render judgments concerning religious expression.

A classic example that evangelical atheists are not only dumb, contrary to their pretensions of 'intelligence', but also out and out amoral liars.

thehomer:

The government by doing that is simply not picking one religion over the other which is one of the points of the constitution.
The government is saying that creationism cannot be taught in the science classes because it isn't science just as geocetrism isn't taught in science classes as factual though they may be taught in religion classes.
Not just Obama's administration, but Bush's administration and the courts of the land.
All you seem to be whining about is that Christianity is not privileged by the government. This simply shows your inability to understand that the fact that you're a Christian doesn't mean all must bow to your whims. Oh and neither secular humanism nor liberalism are religions. And liberalism is what is keeping your religion safe from the government. Just so you know.

This is why you need to understand the concept of the constitution that enigma is lecturing you about, you don't seem to be getting it, that the so called Separation of Church and State is a myth that has no basis in the constitution but what the Secular humanists are using to attack Christianity and the Bible.

thehomer:

You said Christianity is based on religious faith. Do you agree with this or not? Actually, Christianity hasn't been confirmed by science unless you're willing to show me scientifically where people were raised from the dead or female virgins giving birth to people.
Saying the theory of evolution isn't scientific doesn't make it unscientific. Simply take the time to read.
Also, I notice that like many religious people, you don't actually address what I say but simply post whatever sounds good to you. You need to put some effort into what you're doing.

When I say faith I mean the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. You practise this kind of faith when you sit down as you don't check to see whether the seat/chair has the strength or capacity to bear your weight and if you do everytime you sit in a bus or a plane then you need help.

Our faith rests on the solid foundation of the Word of God which has been tried and tested on the past and it proves true in the present. We also have confidence of its claim in the future and the Bible is what the American's constitution was founded on which you Secular humanists with the help of some deluded "Christians" are trying to pull down.

The theory of evolution has been fraudulently and erroneously taught as science when it provent that it has no foundation to rest on. It has no answer to foundational questions and thus qualifies as a religion of the atheists, pagans and comprising "Christians". This is what is called blind faith. If you want to know how science confirms the Bible you need to check out the thread where this was addressed.

Enigma: Ah, Mr Dunce runs away ------ again as on about 4 or 5 previous threads now. NID of course.

It was e'er thus. The thick mumu always runs when he is exposed for the dumbass that he is despite his bluffing and pretensions to "intellectualism".

And of course he has once again been exposed to be a patent liar.

Look at what he said, when I informed him for the umpteenth time that the President is the only one not legally required to say "so help me God".



When the penny dropped for the mumu, after three days of learning from me what an intelligent person would have learned from my very first post on the point, the mumu pretends and LIES shamelessly.


Oh, and the mumu is now trying to wriggle again after being exposed once more for the dunce that he is in his statement that the courts do not render judgments concerning religious expression.

A classic example that evangelical atheists are not only dumb, contrary to their pretensions of 'intelligence', but also out and out amoral liars.

You may like to know the reason for the 'intelligence' of our resident evangelical atheist evolutionists.

OLAADEGBU:

This is why you need to understand the concept of the constitution that enigma is lecturing you about, you don't seem to be getting it, that the so called Separation of Church and State is a myth that has no basis in the constitution but what the Secular humanists are using to attack Christianity and the Bible.

I understand the concept but both of you obviously do not. How can it be a myth when courts in the U.S have used that as a basis for many rulings?

OLAADEGBU:
When I say faith I mean the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. You practise this kind of faith when you sit down as you don't check to see whether the seat/chair has the strength or capacity to bear your weight and if you do everytime you sit in a bus or a plane then you need help.

No I don't because I have good reasons based on evidence for thinking that the chair can support my weight but the faith you're talking about if often based on poor evidence or against the available evidence e.g that only praying for someone with HIV will cure them.

OLAADEGBU:
Our faith rests on the solid foundation of the Word of God which has been tried and tested on the past and it proves true in the present. We also have confidence of its claim in the future and the Bible is what the American's constitution was founded on which you Secular humanists with the help of some deluded "Christians" are trying to pull down.

Are you willing to test it again today? The American constitution wasn't founded on the Bible. Or have you seen any references to Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

OLAADEGBU:
The theory of evolution has been fraudulently and erroneously taught as science when it provent that it has no foundation to rest on. It has no answer to foundational questions and thus qualifies as a religion of the atheists, pagans and comprising "Christians". This is what is called blind faith. If you want to know how science confirms the Bible you need to check out the thread where this was addressed.

Are you saying that if a scientific theory has no answer to "foundational questions" (whatever that means), then it is a religion? Do you think Christianity is a religion?
Does the Bible confirm the theory of evolution?

OLAADEGBU:

You may like to know the reason for the 'intelligence' of our resident evangelical atheist evolutionists.

Per Francis Bacon

. . . nothing can be more justly allotted to be the saying of fools than this, "There is no God"

thehomer:

I understand the concept but both of you obviously do not. How can it be a myth when courts in the U.S have used that as a basis for many rulings? . . . .

Courts use myths quite frequently as a matter of fact.

^^ On top of which I had posted the below previously.

Controversy over use

The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional.

Enigma: ^^ On top of which I had posted the below previously.

Thanks for this info. I will appreciate it if you can post the link if this hasn't been done previously.

One more thing and I'll make it loud just in case it will help in getting the point across to those sadly slower to assimilate things.

Jefferson who originated the phrase "separation of Church and State" must have had a different idea of what it means compared to what many mumus shouting the phrase nowadays use it to mean.


For example: as previously posted, Jefferson attended a church service on government property two days after coining the phrase "separation of Church and State"; not only that he continued to allow church services to be held on government property and himself to attend those church services.

Nowadays the evangelical/militant atheist mumus will shout at him "hey, you can't do that, 'separation of church and state'!"

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

@Olaadegbu

It is this one first posted on age 11 of this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969378

thehomer:

I understand the concept but both of you obviously do not. How can it be a myth when courts in the U.S have used that as a basis for many rulings?

Did you read what Enigma has just quoted?

thehomer:

No I don't because I have good reasons based on evidence for thinking that the chair can support my weight but the faith you're talking about if often based on poor evidence or against the available evidence e.g that only praying for someone with HIV will cure them.

Your "good reasons" for believing is based on what you see, do you know about optical illusions? We surely can believe in a lot of things that we cannot visibly see. Have you ever seen the wind, have you seen history? or have you seen your brain? I know we can see the effects of the wind which is invisible. It is by faith that I can believe the records of history, that those historical events actually happened since I was not there. Television waves can be detected with a receiver even though we don't see it with our naked eyes. Your dead spirit needs to be made alive to so as to be aware of the spiritual realm and be able to tap into it.

thehomer:

Are you willing to test it again today? The American constitution wasn't founded on the Bible. Or have you seen any references to Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

Most of the constitutions of the developed countries today was based on the Bible, the United Kingdom for instance. Go read the constitution of the U.S. and give me a feedback.

thehomer:

Are you saying that if a scientific theory has no answer to "foundational questions" (whatever that means), then it is a religion? Do you think Christianity is a religion?
Does the Bible confirm the theory of evolution?

The Bible has answers to foundational questions, such as the ultimate cause of the universe, the origin of life and information which the evolution theory has no clue about. You just believe all those conjectures and claim it to be science when it is only fantasy of the fertile mind.

Enigma: @Olaadegbu

It is this one first posted on age 11 of this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969378

Thanks a bunch.

One more ----- especially for the uninformed, misinformed or disinformed.

Per the American Supreme Court in 1962 1952+

The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist* or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

* Militant/Aggressive/Evangelical/Fundamentalist/etc atheist more like.
+Zorach v Clauson

OLAADEGBU:

Did you read what Enigma has just quoted?

What he said is simply more straw-men. Just take the time to read what is at this link.
They are Jefferson's own words and ideas in context. A simple way to test this is by asking yourself if such activities would be acceptable if done by wiccans.

OLAADEGBU:
Your "good reasons" for believing is based on what you see, do you know about optical illusions? We surely can believe in a lot of things that we cannot visibly see. Have you ever seen the wind, have you seen history? or have you seen your brain? I know we can see the effects of the wind which is invisible. It is by faith that I can believe the records of history, that those historical events actually happened since I was not there. Television waves can be detected with a receiver even though we don't see it with our naked eyes. Your dead spirit needs to be made alive to so as to be aware of the spiritual realm and be able to tap into it.

You are committing the fallacy of ambiguity here. There are various meanings of the word faith and you're conflating them. Please see this link and tell me the particular definition you're using above.

OLAADEGBU:
Most of the constitutions of the developed countries today was based on the Bible, the United Kingdom for instance. Go read the constitution of the U.S. and give me a feedback.

This is an example of the genetic fallacy. The fact that Christianity used to be prevalent in e.g the U.K doesn't mean that the content of their current laws are based on it. Especially when we know that some of their laws are actually contrary to the Bible. So, why don't you read through the U.S constitution and tell me the laws that are derived exclusively from the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible has answers to foundational questions, such as the ultimate cause of the universe, the origin of life and information which the evolution theory has no clue about. You just believe all those conjectures and claim it to be science when it is only fantasy of the fertile mind.

Is Christianity a religion? And are biologists scientists? The answers you give to these questions will really help you respond understand the issues.

Relevant bits from the Jefferson letter which originated the expression "separation of Church and State" in this context.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect . . . .

Per the same Thomas Jefferson later elsewhere

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

Oh and the American Supreme Court ibid in 1962 1952 said:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction.

I dont know why people are arguing over separation of church and state. The christians are bitter that they can not enforce a theocracy on others.

Name one prospering country that is both developed and free which doesnt have this principle. Secularity has always been the way forward.

Creationism and intelligent design have been debunked. There shouldnt be a debate with evolution.

I believe this article, that I just came across, summarises the myth about the wall of separation between the Church and State.

Has Evolution become a State Religion?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Has Evolution become a State Religion?

The Church of England had been established as the official state church of that country for a long time, but in the nineteenth century an effort was launched to "dis-establish" it, and remove its favored status. Yet some wanted to retain the designation, and launched the anti-disestablish movement. Their movement became known as antidisestablish-mentarianism, a beloved word of all school children who brag they can spell the longest word in the English language. There are longer words, but we can learn a lesson from this historical episode.

America's founding fathers rejected all ideas of a national church, even though numerous voices clamored for one and several of the individual states had already selected one or the other. The very first amendment to the constitution codified this commitment, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." Nowhere did they insist on "the separation of church and state" in the sense that religious concepts had no place in government, indeed quotes abound affirming their personal and national dependence on God. They insisted on freedom of religion, not the favoring of one denomination over the other. The modern day removal of all vestiges of Christianity from the public arena would greatly displease the founders. Many were devout Christians, of varying denominations, but of deep personal convictions. They wanted to keep the state out of religion, not eliminate a Christian influence on affairs of the state.

How then can we understand the government mandated rush to embrace the concept of evolutionary naturalism? The idea that life originated, indeed the entire universe originated through strictly natural processes (as opposed to supernatural processes) is a religious concept, incapable of observation or proof, yet held by faith. In evolutionary naturalism, life not only finds its origin, but also its meaning and destiny in nature. As many have noted, it is essentially equivalent with atheism.

Our government schools teach evolution with fervor at taxpayer expense, ignoring alternatives. Textbook writers often repeat information known to be false, in the name of good evolution teaching. Teacher unions aggressively combat other views while defending teachers who abuse students of different faiths than evolution. Our courts declare other origins views off-limits, branding them religion. Scientists have even redefined the goal of science. No longer is it "the search for truth," it has become the search for naturalistic explanations. Self-serving civil libertarians promise a bitter lawsuit against any who would return to the views of the founders. How could we have come so far? Where is the road back?

The state-supported church of atheistic evolutionism has been almost fully established in this once Christian country. I, for one, support the "disestablishment" of this false, unscientific, and harmful church. I do not favor establishing any Christian creed as the State Church, but it should be allowed to function without government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I pray that it would flourish and that America's leaders would once again welcome its wholesome influence in society.

For more . . . .

Separation State - church is not a myth.
There are countries that have hundreds of years of practice with a secular state, in which churches profess their faith, and the state takes care of their tasks.
Stick to your shoes.

Ptolomeus: Separation State - church is not a myth.
There are countries that have hundreds of years of practice with a secular state, in which churches profess their faith, and the state takes care of their tasks.
Stick to your shoes.

Have you considered England for instance, who still has the Church of England as its official state church, whose queen is currently celebrating its 60th golden jubilee?

OLAADEGBU:

Have you considered England for instance, who still has the Church of England as its official state church, whose queen is currently celebrating its 60th golden jubilee?

And so? That is their history only

logicboy:

And so? That is their history only

Not only history, but tradition. See the videoclip below and see whose made a gaffe here, Obama or the Queen?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVS_It6EIGo

Silly post, silly poster. Falling for the tricks of the teaparty.

OLAADEGBU:

Not only history, but tradition. . . . .

And indeed their Constitution.

Even quite a number of European and the Scandinavian states that militant/evangelical atheist mumus shout about still have Christianity as their official state religion to this day. In one of them even, the Constitution stipulates that the monarch must be a member of the state church.

Oh by the way, returning to America briefly, the National Day of Prayer was mandated by Congress obliging the President to declare one such day each year. Further, Congress certainly had primarily Christianity and Christian prayer in mind granted that because of increased diversity now it is reasonable to take it that the celebration is not meant for Christians only.

Enigma:

And indeed their Constitution.
ind granted that because of increased diversity now it is reasonable to take it that the celebration is not meant for Christians only.

Do the British have a written constitution or is is a vague collection of traditions and court rulings?

Since it has been determined by both parties in this thread that their 'students' are mumus, what else can we learn from this thread?

I would say that it suggests that various irreconcilable parties in American politics are getting more entrenched and recalcitrant and the situation resembles a powder keg that is about to blow up in the face of American politics.

This gives me much food for thought. I ought to go back and continue writing in my Wars of Religion thread.

Pastor AIO:

Do the British have a written constitution or is is a vague collection of traditions and court rulings?

A Constitution does not have to be an individual or even a particular written document. And yes the British have a Constitution which is more than a mere collection of traditions and court rulings. (By the way, was that from Wikipedia?)

Pastor AIO: Since it has been determined by both parties in this thread that their 'students' are mumus, what else can we learn from this thread?

I would say that it suggests that various irreconcilable parties in American politics are getting more entrenched and recalcitrant and the situation resembles a powder keg that is about to blow up in the face of American politics.

This gives me much food for thought. I ought to go back and continue writing in my Wars of Religion thread.

There are quite a number of things to learn from this thread but I will point to only one. Many of the people who were shouting "separation of Church and State" on this thread are/were quite ignorant. I guess, some of them would be better informed by now --- hopefully including my student ---- indeed a mumu as the thread has shown.

Enigma:

A Constitution does not have to be an individual or even a particular written document. And yes the British have a Constitution which is more than a mere collection of traditions and court rulings. (By the way, was that from Wikipedia?)

I see that you are still enjoying making your jibes. Well good for you, I've left you on that level.

Who's making jibes? And don't we know your level?

And your post to which I responded was not a "jibe"?

Enigma: Who's making jibes? And don't we know your level?

And your post to which I responded was not a "jibe"?

Actually it wasn't a jibe. If you felt jibed on any level then it was unintentional and I'm sorry to have made you feel that way. I thought that your reference to wikipedia, having nothing to do with what I wrote, was a jibe. If it wasn't then I'm sorry.