ODonnell was right!!

[Guest]

There is no first amendment separation of church and state. People have heard liberals say this so much they think it is a fact.
The first amendment says...
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.
ESTABLISHMENT of religion was INTERPRETED by judges beyond the words themselves,, and that is why we have such a mess with words like In God we trust on our money, Under God, etc..
I am NOT a religious person.. but I do think that our founding fathers were smart enough to know how to say wall of separation if they intended to mean more than Establishment of religion.
O Donnell is right.. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution and she was RIDICULED for saying it.. and they were absolutely WRONG.

[Guest]

Read the Federalist Papers. Jefferson, himself, addressed this in a letter to a Danbury Baptist congregation and said that the "Establishment" clause, combined with the "free exercise" clause meant that a wall was put up between Church and State. In 1802, President Jefferson wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people that declared that their Congress should make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


I'll also quote James Madison ("Father of the Constitution) from 1819:

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century [1600’s] preceding the last [1700’s], that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government...functions with complete success; Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

[Guest]

She is certainly qualified when one looks at a cross section of the incumbents capabilities and capabilities.

Most importantly as I have said before she does not know, and does not need to know why things are as they are or why they need to stay as they are.

Al the incumbents have been there for years and are quite content with business as usual which does not include much of the need for we the people.

There may not be term limits but we sure can dump the duds.

She most certainly can do no more harm than the establishment.

It is quite comforting to see/hear we the people finally get off their couches and get out and stand to be counted (there it is again!).

If I lived in Delaware I would support and vote for her. Then I would keep in touch with constant contact to remind her of why we put her in office.

Ditto for the Florida newbie candidates. The establishment needs to be removed....no ifs ands or buts.

btk

[Guest]

Read the Federalist Papers. Jefferson, himself, addressed this in a letter to a Danbury Baptist congregation and said that the "Establishment" clause, combined with the "free exercise" clause meant that a wall was put up between Church and State. In 1802, President Jefferson wrote:


I'll also quote James Madison ("Father of the Constitution) from 1819:

I think you're misunderstanding this DJ. JimJoe was referring to the Constitution of the United States and it's lawful Amendments.
He was not referring to other writings of Jefferson that anti-constitutionalists list as if they were part of the Constitution that was ratified by the Congress of the United States.
I hope that clears this up. (I'm so sure that's going to happen)

[Guest]

I think you're misunderstanding this DJ. JimJoe was referring to the Constitution of the United States and it's lawful Amendments.
He was not referring to other writings of Jefferson that anti-constitutionalists list as if they were part of the Constitution that was ratified by the Congress of the United States.
I hope that clears this up. (I'm so sure that's going to happen)

RichieLion: You are EXACTLY CORRECT.. Liberals constantly want to add words to the constitution to fit their interpretations.
I do not care what any individual founding father wrote before or after the constitution was ratified.
It was ratified by far more than ONE or two or a few founding fathers..
It was a compromise document that should stand on its words.
Why do we allow liberals to do to our founding fathers what they do to conservatives: treat them like they are stupid.
Our founding fathers could have easily said WALL OF SEPARATION instead of Establishment of Religion, if that is what they meant. Many documents of that era including the Declaration of Independence which THOSE FOUNDING FATHERS signed refer to god and creator, and would have violated that WALL if they intended a WALL. They signed onto Establishment of Religion.. don't accuse them of being too stupid to sign one document and MEAN something else.
JJ

[Guest]

Just great. Someone says "well, that's not what they meant in the COnstitution" so I provide the text where the writers explain what their intent was.

You don't put a whole dialogue into law. The idea used to be to make a law as succint and brief as possible (unlike today's 2000 page bills).

They said "respecting an establishment of religion" because that's what they meant. When people asked for an explanation, that's what they got. 2nd Ammendment defenders are *constantly* referring to the Federalist Papers where the founders made it CLEAR that citizens were to be allowed to arm themselves.

So why is it any different when it's YOUR ox being gored? When the framers explain what they meant, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court - why the sudden change of heart concerning this kind of material when it's the FIRST Ammendment?

...and yes, they referred to God and the Creator. But you'll notice they did NOT refer to any specific religion - and with *damn* good reason.

[Guest]

Just great. Someone says "well, that's not what they meant in the COnstitution" so I provide the text where the writers explain what their intent was.

You don't put a whole dialogue into law. The idea used to be to make a law as succint and brief as possible (unlike today's 2000 page bills).

They said "respecting an establishment of religion" because that's what they meant. When people asked for an explanation, that's what they got. 2nd Ammendment defenders are *constantly* referring to the Federalist Papers where the founders made it CLEAR that citizens were to be allowed to arm themselves.

So why is it any different when it's YOUR ox being gored? When the framers explain what they meant, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court - why the sudden change of heart concerning this kind of material when it's the FIRST Ammendment?

...and yes, they referred to God and the Creator. But you'll notice they did NOT refer to any specific religion - and with *damn* good reason.


There's not much to say about your answer than to say that you are completely and utterly wrong. If the meaning you glean out of the Constitution was meant to be in the Constitution, it would have been in the Constitution. You have a very concise and succinct bill with no hidden meanings and this was done on purpose. After the fact and after ratification you want to say that Jefferson meant something else than was written and voted on. Hogwash!!!

You want to use the language of the Constitution as if it was a metaphor and not a definitive statement and that is just ridiculous. The activist court is wrong and you are wrong and no amount of redefinition can change that.

[Guest]

Just great. Someone says "well, that's not what they meant in the COnstitution" so I provide the text where the writers explain what their intent was.

You don't put a whole dialogue into law. The idea used to be to make a law as succint and brief as possible (unlike today's 2000 page bills).

They said "respecting an establishment of religion" because that's what they meant. When people asked for an explanation, that's what they got. 2nd Ammendment defenders are *constantly* referring to the Federalist Papers where the founders made it CLEAR that citizens were to be allowed to arm themselves.

So why is it any different when it's YOUR ox being gored? When the framers explain what they meant, which has been backed up by the Supreme Court - why the sudden change of heart concerning this kind of material when it's the FIRST Ammendment?

...and yes, they referred to God and the Creator. But you'll notice they did NOT refer to any specific religion - and with *damn* good reason.

Answer this: Was ODonnell right? If you cannot say yes or no, the answer is yes.
JJ

[Guest]

The other thing liberals like to ignore is all the other reams of information from the other founders, the regular chuch services held each week in congress, the Bibles printed by congress, The Bible lessons in public schools and so on. Actual History I guess is over rated this days.

[Guest]

Answer this: Was ODonnell right? If you cannot say yes or no, the answer is yes.
JJ

Liberals would much rather dazzle you with bull crap then answer your question yes or no if the answer is not to their liking.

Yoda

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eweissenbach
It seems to me that internet chat boards in general bring out the combativeness in people. Often people say things in response to a post that they would never say face to face. Just check out the politics board if you want to see the extreme example of contenscious debate. If I disagree with someone I try to always frame my response in a way that shows respect for their viewpoint, but asking them to consider a different view. Unfortunately a fair number of people respond by putting down the other person and their viewpoint, which does not further understanding and creates enemies. This seems to be the way of our political discourse in this country, making compromise impossible as both sides insult, mock, and even slander the other as a matter of course. It is not only distasteful, but ultimately very harmful. JMHO. Ed

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eweissenbach
It seems to me that internet chat boards in general bring out the combativeness in people. Often people say things in response to a post that they would never say face to face. Just check out the politics board if you want to see the extreme example of contenscious debate. If I disagree with someone I try to always frame my response in a way that shows respect for their viewpoint, but asking them to consider a different view. Unfortunately a fair number of people respond by putting down the other person and their viewpoint, which does not further understanding and creates enemies. This seems to be the way of our political discourse in this country, making compromise impossible as both sides insult, mock, and even slander the other as a matter of course. It is not only distasteful, but ultimately very harmful. JMHO. Ed


We all know, as you have lectured us before, how you feel about those of us who post here, but I am wondering about the "harmful" attributes of posting here against the "harmful" outcome of things as I just posted in the Juan Williams thread...let me share with you...

"National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should both be defunded permanently. Speech in those two venues is only free if the views expressed are those of the super-Liberal, Progressive Ideology. George Soros just gave them 1.8 million dollars to hire 100 new reporters for NPR right before Mr. Williams’ firing.

George Soros gives money to the TIDES Foundation, which is a Communist organization."

http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/soros-first-npr-victim-juan-williams/3496/

Now, my question for you is this...which is more harmful...discussing what is going on in the world, albeit with passion, or IGNORING things like this ?

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

There is quite a lot of evidence that the Fouding Fathers meant to build up a strong wall between church and state.

[Guest]

Both Jefferson and Madison, in the previous examples, were speaking about the establishment of a religion by law.

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]


An example of what they were talking about being harmful to the states' rights and individual liberties is what we are seeing happen with the current government promoting Islam and supporting Muslims' and their religion. See what a mess happens when the govenment gets involved in religion and sets out to promote one religion over another.

[Guest]

I think they did mean to protect churches from the government and make sure that "congress" couldn't pass any laws as the constitution states.

I'd be willing to bet that founders didn't intend to remove God or prayer from schools or sue city governments from putting a nativity scene in front of the local city hall at Christmas.

In San Diego where I'm from, I grew up watching this total stupidity over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

Nothing more than continued left wing, liberal, atheist attempts to remove God from our country. Starting in 1962, this is just another chapter to change and rewrite our history.

Shame on them.

[Guest]

Question: What were the first universities in America and who founded these universities?

[Guest]

sounds so much like.....political correctness.
You know the permissive concept that allows not doing or saying what is right with a skewed authority. Then if one is not on the side of political correctness they are labeled in a negative fashion.
Say what you think/believe.....be prepared to take lumps deserved or not...stand and be counted (oh-oh!)...

One tales courage the other just lemming following!

btk

[Guest]

Harvard University established in 1636 by the Massachusetts state government. The college primarily trained clergy.

[Guest]

Harvard University established in 1636 by the Massachusetts state government. The college primarily trained clergy.

Correct.

Another question to show historically and with facts the foundation of this country and our Founding Fathers. This is not to say they wanted the government to establish or control religion. But to show, historically, what the believed in as individuals who set out to form a new Republic.

What did our first US President George Washington and his members of Congress do after Washington's inauguration as our country's first president?

[Guest]

He and the members of Congress went to St. Paul’s Church for a service.

[Guest]

Question: What were the first universities in America and who founded these universities?

The College of William and Mary is where Thomas Jefferson went to college along with other future US presidents and 16 signers of the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_College_of_William_%26_Mary

It seemed to go through extensive changes as not to seem entangling church and state. Unlike Harvard, it also looks like it was a public institution.

If I remember correctly both William and Mary were against the establishment of religion in England, Scotland and Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_and_Mary

[Guest]

I think they did mean to protect churches from the government and make sure that "congress" couldn't pass any laws as the constitution states.

I'd be willing to bet that founders didn't intend to remove God or prayer from schools or sue city governments from putting a nativity scene in front of the local city hall at Christmas.

In San Diego where I'm from, I grew up watching this total stupidity over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

Nothing more than continued left wing, liberal, atheist attempts to remove God from our country. Starting in 1962, this is just another chapter to change and rewrite our history.

Shame on them.

From our current President's book..."Audacity of Hope"

"There are a whole lot of religious people in America, including the majority of Democrats. When we abandon the field of religious discourse—when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."

President Barrack Obama


Yes, I have quoted President Obama !!!

[Guest]

ODonnell was right! and those smarty pants snickering faculty, law students and others at Widener University Law School in Wilmington are dumber than they know.
(Remember, I am a lawyer so I know how dumb lawyers can be.).

There is nothing in the first amendment about a WALL of Separation or even Separation of Church and State. I came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
The Supreme Court over the years has expanded the "establishment" clause with such a hodge podge of decisions they have made a mess... a GOD awful mess to excuse the pun.
Is it ok to have In God we trust on our money? How about God in the pledge of allegiance? Prayers before we open the Supreme Court, Congress, in our oaths, on our gov buildings, nativity scenes in public buildings, Phrases on our buildings..
it goes on and on and on. AND .. it will get worse and worse the harder they try.

"Religion" is different than GOD, and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is what the founding fathers said and INTENDED to say. They were not stupid, unlike Sarah Palin (jab to you liberals).
So let the words in the Constitution mean what they say, and IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE OR ADD TO THEM, amend the constitution..
Stop letting judges write our laws JUST BECAUSE IT IS EASIER.
TRUST ME.. they are not perfect and make many many mistakes.. and even occasionally correct them.. Brown v. Board of Education.
JJ
BTW.. I am half atheist, half agnostic (nature if you will), in case you were wondering if I was a religious nut. I am NOT religious although I was raised in a strict religious home.. but I do not go balistic when god is mentioned anywhere in gov. That is the same kind of politically correct hysteria that cause NPR to fire Juan Williams.

[Guest]

....but, it seems like the evidence of the philosophical leanings of some of the Founding Fathers would place them separating church and state. This IS in form of a wall between established religions and government.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htmThe Founding Fathers were also not very far removed from the effects of the various religious wars in Europe from the 1500s through the 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion



ODonnell was right! and those smarty pants snickering faculty, law students and others at Widener University Law School in Wilmington are dumber than they know.
(Remember, I am a lawyer so I know how dumb lawyers can be.).

There is nothing in the first amendment about a WALL of Separation or even Separation of Church and State. I came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
The Supreme Court over the years has expanded the "establishment" clause with such a hodge podge of decisions they have made a mess... a GOD awful mess to excuse the pun.
Is it ok to have In God we trust on our money? How about God in the pledge of allegiance? Prayers before we open the Supreme Court, Congress, in our oaths, on our gov buildings, nativity scenes in public buildings, Phrases on our buildings..
it goes on and on and on. AND .. it will get worse and worse the harder they try.

"Religion" is different than GOD, and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is what the founding fathers said and INTENDED to say. They were not stupid, unlike Sarah Palin (jab to you liberals).
So let the words in the Constitution mean what they say, and IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE OR ADD TO THEM, amend the constitution..
Stop letting judges write our laws JUST BECAUSE IT IS EASIER.
TRUST ME.. they are not perfect and make many many mistakes.. and even occasionally correct them.. Brown v. Board of Education.
JJ
BTW.. I am half atheist, half agnostic (nature if you will), in case you were wondering if I was a religious nut. I am NOT religious although I was raised in a strict religious home.. but I do not go balistic when god is mentioned anywhere in gov. That is the same kind of politically correct hysteria that cause NPR to fire Juan Williams.

[Guest]

....but, it seems like the evidence of the philosophical leanings of some of the Founding Fathers would place them separating church and state. This IS in form of a wall between established religions and government.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

The Founding Fathers were also not very far removed from the effects of the various religious wars in Europe from the 1500s through the 1600s.

Do you agree with O Donnell?
Neither The WALL nor the SEPARATION are in the constitution!

[Guest]

Do you agree with O Donnell?
The WALL nor the SEPARATION are in the constitution!

The word "wall" is not in the US Constitution but it certainly seems to be a big part of the establishment clause as interpreted by United States Supreme Court Justices.

So, no I do not agree with O Donnell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

[Guest]

The word "wall" is not in the US Constitution but it certainly seems to be a big part of the establishment clause as interpreted by United States Supreme Court Justices.

So, no I do not agree with O Donnell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment


What else is hiding in there I cannot see?
Finding Things in there I cannot see is scary, and will vary as the political winds blow. Is that really what our founding fathers wanted?
JJ

[Guest]

I wonder of the founders intended for there to be no prayer is schools, no crosses on public land, no nativaty scenes in front of city hall, no ten commands in schools or at any public buildings, etc, etc, etc. Any rational person would realize this wasn't the case nor is it the case today

In God We Trust has been printed on our money for 148 years by the federal government. Wonder if the founders including Jefferson would now vote to remove In God We Trust from our currency? I think not.

Yet some today will use the Constitution including actavist judges and contend that it should in fact be removed.

Was this the intent of the founders or the 1st amendment. I think not.

[Guest]

I wonder of the founders intended for there to be no prayer is schools, no crosses on public land, no nativaty scenes in front of city hall, no ten commands in schools or at any public buildings, etc, etc, etc. Any rational person would realize this wasn't the case nor is it the case today

In God We Trust has been printed on our money for 148 years by the federal government. Wonder if the founders including Jefferson would now vote to remove In God We Trust from our currency? I think not.

Yet some today will use the Constitution including actavist judges and contend that it should in fact be removed.

Was this the intent of the founders or the 1st amendment. I think not.

There seems to be quite a tradition of having "In God We Trust" on US currency. I cannot really see activist judges successfully removing this phrase as it does not promote one religion but many of them that have one deity-- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and probably deism.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[Guest]

If you take God from the fabric of society, the leftists can restructure the USA in their image.:(

[Guest]

If you take God the Creator out of the Constitution as the anti-Constitutionalists battle to accomplish, you also might imply that our rights and freedoms as defined in the Declaration of Independence are not endowed as our natural birthright from God.
This leaves us as "subjects" of the Government who instead fill the role as our ruler, and benefactor of bestowed right and freedoms. We'd have fought a revolution for naught.
It's really not so hard to see the end game of the anti-Constitutionalists and their "useful idiots" who don't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to erasing God from the documents of our nation's founding.

[Guest]

If you take God the Creator out of the Constitution as the anti-Constitutionalists battle to accomplish, you also might imply that our rights and freedoms as defined in the Declaration of Independence are not endowed as our natural birthright from God.
This leaves us as "subjects" of the Government who instead fill the role as our ruler, and benefactor of bestowed right and freedoms. We'd have fought a revolution for naught.
It's really not so hard to see the end game of the anti-Constitutionalists and their "useful idiots" who don't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to erasing God from the documents of our nation's founding.

Very well said, Mr. Lion. :thumbup:

[Guest]

Well articulated.

btk

[Guest]

Fine - the shortest answer I can give: O'Donnell was wrong.

The long answer? Look at what I posted before. The Establishment clause is there. Explanations of the clause are there.

What many people forget: It is religion-specificity that is prohibited. You can still put "God" on the money, etc, because that's generic.

[Guest]

You can take religion out while still leaving God in.

I'm not being sarcastic here - does that make sense?

In other words: "They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Not "endowed by Pope benedict's boss" or anything like that.

[Guest]

I watched the TV show The Tudors. What stirred everything up over there was the King changing the Kingdom's official religion. He wanted a divorce and the Catholics would not let him, so he changed the official religion of England.

The founding father's were all God fearing people. They just didn't want the United States to have an official church. And contrary to myths, there was not any atheists among them. Maybe a few Agnostics, that's all.

[Guest]

Yeah, as much as I have no love for many organized religions, I don't know WHERE some people get the idea that the founders were atheistic. While it can be difficult to pin down what religion many were, the fact that they were at the very least Deists (believing in *a* God of some sort) is undeniable.

Heck, my particular favorite, Jefferson, loathed "orthodox" Christianity but very much believed in a Creator to the extent that he even wanted to publish a "fixed" Bible (with his edits).

[Guest]

Yeah, as much as I have no love for many organized religions, I don't know WHERE some people get the idea that the founders were atheistic. While it can be difficult to pin down what religion many were, the fact that they were at the very least Deists (believing in *a* God of some sort) is undeniable.

Heck, my particular favorite, Jefferson, loathed "orthodox" Christianity but very much believed in a Creator to the extent that he even wanted to publish a "fixed" Bible (with his edits).

If this is the same "Bible" as here, then I am not so sure that many Christians would be all that happy with it. It seems to make out Jesus Christ as a wise man with a valuable philosophy of life. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/05/local/me-beliefs5

[Guest]

Fine - the shortest answer I can give: O'Donnell was wrong.

The long answer? Look at what I posted before. The Establishment clause is there. Explanations of the clause are there.

What many people forget: It is religion-specificity that is prohibited. You can still put "God" on the money, etc, because that's generic.

You have to go through many machinations and pointing to alternate and separate writings to get to your idea of "separation" of church and state and the attendant eradication of all things related to God in the public square that those with your analysis aspire to.

All I have to do is READ the Constitution and it's as plain on the nose my face that there is no "separation" of church and state written into said document or in any amendment to it. All there is, is a sentence stating that the government shall not "establish" a national religion.

As stated previously the Constitution is not written in "metaphors" and "parables", but was carefully crafted and then debated and then ratified in law by the 1st Congressional Congress.

It is only the activists who insist on reading whatever meaning they wish to see into the Constitution, that was so simply and concisely crafted, in order to pursue agendas not consistent with the brilliant document of our founding, and thus bastardize the Constitution, and fail our nation and it's citizens.


(In my zeal I credit the 1st Congress of the United States with the passing of the Constituition, but that was actually the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia; the 1st Congress of the United States passed the Amendments.)

[Guest]

You have to go through many machinations and pointing to alternate and separate writings to get to your idea of "separation" of church and state and the attendant eradication of all things related to God in the public square that those with your analysis aspire to.

All I have to do is READ the Constitution and it's as plain on the nose my face that there is no "separation" of church and state written into said document or in any amendment to it. All there is, is a sentence stating that the government shall not "establish" a national religion.

As stated previously the Constitution is not written in "metaphors" and "parables", but was carefully crafted and then debated and then ratified in law by the 1st Congressional Congress.

It is only the activists who insist on reading whatever meaning they wish to see into the Constitution, that was so simply and concisely crafted, in order to pursue agendas not consistent with the brilliant document of our founding, and thus bastardize the Constitution, and fail our nation and it's citizens.

Well and thoughtfully said, RL!:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Your on a row Mr. RichieLions!!!:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

You have to go through many machinations and pointing to alternate and separate writings to get to your idea of "separation" of church and state and the attendant eradication of all things related to God in the public square that those with your analysis aspire to.

All I have to do is READ the Constitution and it's as plain on the nose my face that there is no "separation" of church and state written into said document or in any amendment to it. All there is, is a sentence stating that the government shall not "establish" a national religion.


1) You misinterperete me. It's not an "eradication" of "all things God". Time and time again courts have upheld the rights of citizens to put up nativity scenes AS LONG AS, for example, Jewish groups are allowed to put up a menorah, etc. It is showing PREFERENCE for one religion over another that is against the law. Now, you might argue (successfully) that some towns are lilly-livered (or pick your own put-down) and simply put a "no tolerance" policy of religion into effect.

2) Read it:


Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion


Again, it does not say "establishment of A religion". "Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb and the later writings of the founders repeat that intention.

In the same manner that, in 1783, "a well-regulated milita" meant every able-bodied person in the town (militia) who knew how to use a gun ('well-regulated' being sysnonymous with 'well-trained'). Yes, today, colloquial english and society have changed the meaning of the word "militia" to be equivalent to today's "National Guard" but that wasn't the intent back then (no matter how much gun-control advocates WISH it were that way).

[Guest]

DJ; I am only pointing out the ramifications of what radical interpretation of the Constitution brings. Many who believe that the original text of the Constitution is calling for a "separation" also are the people who say you cannot honor God in the public square. I'm not saying you agree with all the radical anti-religionist's agendas, but, in a way, you help facilitate them.

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"


respecting
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: regarding
Synonyms: about, as to, concerning, in connection with, in respect to, referring to, relating to, with reference to, with regard to


The above synonyms of the word "respecting" is from a Thesaurus. It's clear that the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution is that Congress shall pass no law dealing with the "establishment" of religion, not "freedom" from.