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:

The hammer hits the nail on the head!
 

Well articulated.

btk

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 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.

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.

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/mo...c/JefJesu.html

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

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.)

Well and thoughtfully said, RL!:BigApplause:

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

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:

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).

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.