so i spelled profoundly wrong, emotional flooding after reading his statement. To the powers that be I did not mean to upset anyone and apologize if I spoke out too boldly.

Originally Posted by SUNNYMARYANN

so i spelled profoundly wrong, emotional flooding after reading his statement. To the powers that be I did not mean to upset anyone and apologize if I spoke out too boldly.

Far from it. Nothing to apologize for. You are among friends.

Steve- can't really disagree with you, since trying to affix motivation of others is pretty relative. That, of course gives support to a more liberal overall view of relativism v. absolutism, but does not necessarily apply to the specifics of a situation.

My education is a cross between history/pol. sci as an undergrad & theology as a Masters. You won't find me getting passionate about string theory, engineering or statistics- but this area always energizes me. Some "live" for softball or line dancing- I believe that this is much more important than that!

I've always found the very strong differences between the John Adams' & Thomas Jeffersons' style to be very indicative of the two general "sides" that still divide our nation politically/philosophically today. I think Jefferson would probably have been pro-choice and quite a liberal, John Adams would have made a great conservative Republican.

We are blessed as a nation to have George Washington as our "First"- he blended the best of both, and showed tolerance for the other side.

MaryAnn- I meant no offense. I have said my share of decades and Novenas, and was profoundly moved by visits to Lourdes & Fatima. My point was only that the IMAGE of Mary as a white, fair haired blond wearing a blue robe with gold trim just doesn't square with who the historical Mary MUST have been, and there is a whole movement in church history that says the only way to "reach" Jesus is through Mary.

The use of Mary as sole Intercessor has no Biblical foundation. In fact, I'd say that the "reason" the curtain tore in the temple at Jesus' death was to illustrate that humanity no longer "needed" any intercessors (priests of the temple) to be in direct contact with God through Jesus Himself. Just be ready for the blinding light of the Transfiguration or Damascus if you're going to try that route!

There is Biblical evidence of Mary's unyielding loyalty to her son, and of her virgin birth, but the use of Marian adoration evolved through tradition and practice. The Roman Church of the Founders' time would not have recognized the difference between Biblical and Traditional practices.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Steve- can't really disagree with you, since trying to affix motivation of others is pretty relative. That, of course gives support to a more liberal overall view of relativism v. absolutism, but does not necessarily apply to the specifics of a situation.

My education is a cross between history/pol. sci as an undergrad & theology as a Masters. You won't find me getting passionate about string theory, engineering or statistics- but this area always energizes me. Some "live" for softball or line dancing- I believe that this is much more important than that!

I've always found the very strong differences between the John Adams' & Thomas Jeffersons' style to be very indicative of the two general "sides" that still divide our nation politically/philosophically today. I think Jefferson would probably have been pro-choice and quite a liberal, John Adams would have made a great conservative Republican.

We are blessed as a nation to have George Washington as our "First"- he blended the best of both, and showed tolerance for the other side.

MaryAnn- I meant no offense. I have said my share of decades and Novenas, and was profoundly moved by visits to Lourdes & Fatima. My point was only that the IMAGE of Mary as a white, fair haired blond wearing a blue robe with gold trim just doesn't square with who the historical Mary MUST have been, and there is a whole movement in church history that says the only way to "reach" Jesus is through Mary.

The use of Mary as sole Intercessor has no Biblical foundation. In fact, I'd say that the "reason" the curtain tore in the temple at Jesus' death was to illustrate that humanity no longer "needed" any intercessors (priests of the temple) to be in direct contact with God through Jesus Himself. Just be ready for the blinding light of the Transfiguration or Damascus if you're going to try that route!

There is Biblical evidence of Mary's unyielding loyalty to her son, and of her virgin birth, but the use of Marian adoration evolved through tradition and practice. The Roman Church of the Founders' time would not have recognized the difference between Biblical and Traditional practices.

I would disagree on the Roman Catholic Church comment regarding biblical/traditional practices. There are very few "constants" in this world, but the Roman Catholic Church rates as one. The Church moves at the equivalent pace of a glacier, and for good reason. There is sufficient confusion surrounding us, and the Church reminds us that species homo sapiens is not as smart as s/he thinks, especially when behavioral matters are involved. In a sea of radicalism and chaos, a safe harbor and an anchor are indeed welcome.

Thank you Rob and Steve for your words. I often think about what Mary really must have looked like considering her family background and ethinicity and where she lived. The artists have rendered their own interpretations. It isnt important what she looked like, it is who and what she was and is to each individual. I appreciate what you have written.

The feature is from an unknown author and has been circulated on the Internet. The parallels of the state of our nation and the
purposeful removal of God from public life is so powerful.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpddyn0HE[/ame]

Truer words have never been spoken. "We reap what we sow."

They didn't kick God out of the schools. The just won't let the kids say, "Hi."

Yoda

IMHO, the separation of church and state is a good and wise thing...
Too bad more countries don't try it...

Separation of church and state is made up terminology by the left. It doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Separation of church and state is made up terminology by the left. It doesn't exist in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

It still doesn't exist in the Constitution period.

It says "congress shall make no law." That doesn't translate into no prayer, no ten commands, no crosses on public land, no nativity scenes in front of city hall, etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't even say that the state is prohibited from supporting a particular religion. It just says they can't pass a law regarding it. Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.

I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

And in no case did the U.S. Supreme Court ever state that any reference to God shall be devoid from all governmental matters. Neither has the U.S. Supreme Court ever interpreted the First Amendment to say that atheism trumps religion.

With regards to Mr. Jefferson's commentary on "separation of church and state," today's religious antogonists routinely fail to report that Mr. Jefferson, as most of the signatories of the Constitution, was raised as an Anglican - The Church of England. Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues appeared to want to insure their national creation did not mimic the English duality where Head of State and Emissary of the Creator were lawfully endowed as one and the same.

Had these fine and articulate men intended a further separation than that, these wise persons would never have referred in the ratification section of the Constitution that their signing as occurring "in the year of our Lord (emphasis added) one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth".

Originally Posted by dklassen

It still doesn't exist in the Constitution period.
It says "congress shall make no law." That doesn't translate into no prayer, no ten commands, no crosses on public land, no nativity scenes in front of city hall, etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't even say that the state is prohibited from supporting a particular religion. It just says they can't pass a law regarding it. Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.
I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

Fine.
You said that separation of church was "made up by the left". Are you then denying Mr. Jefferson's letter?
Or did you mis-state?

Nope. I'm pretty sure I know what the Constitution says. There's no denying that the Bible was regularly taught in public schools and played a major role in shaping our country.

Remember the "One Nation under God" thing?... or how about this "In God We Trust." I think it's still on our money in fact.

Patrick Henry said, "The Bible is a book worth more than all other books that were ever printed." Thomas Jefferson was the first President of the Washington D.C. school board which adopted the Bible as a primary reader.

So we went from the Bible in public schools to no crosses on public land and no prayer or ten commandments in schools.

So how's that been working out for us so far?

I hear the public schools in D.C are in dandy shape these days, no shootings in over a month now.