http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-and-discourse

Thanks for the post. I'm appreciative of intellectual backup. I've recently been debating this subject and this article makes my point very nicely.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Thanks for the post. I'm appreciative of intellectual backup. I've recently been debating this subject and this article makes my point very nicely.

Which reminds me to tell you and DJPLONG that I sure have enjoyed reading your back and forths on this subject. I never feel smart enough to debate the constitution so just enjoy reading which creates more things to learn about.

Thanks to both of you !

PS: I posted this note here on the assumption that maybe, just maybe, DJPLONG may visit !

Thanks Bucco; I wouldn't be nearly as informed without the internet. Thanks God for Google (Now if only I can find a way to have it implanted in my head)

I wasn't able to read the whole thing - not yet anyway. I certainly appreciate the offering of another point of view, though I still disagree with it. At first glance it seems like an awful lot of work was gone in to paint a particular picture of the circumstances concerning the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It's like using Jefferson's writings to call him atheist when, in fact, he was decrying particular sects of Christianity. Yes, he wrote "wall of separation" and walls works two ways.

I'd have to read the article more carefully but it appears - again at first glance - to ignore anything that doesn't support it's point of view - and The Heritage Foundation has it's own biases.

My point has been that Richie's statement of "no official religion" *is* correct but that there's more to it. At no time am I implying he's wrong - just *in my opinion*, incomplete.

The current recount in Alaska is another example of a Judge changing the clear meaning of the law to what he believes it should say. In the contest for Senator, Lisa Murkowski conducted a write-in campaign. There is a recount of the votes going on with the judicial instructions that a vote shall be counted if the voter's intent can be determined.

The actual state statue says:

(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.

(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.

(12)(b) The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.

The requirement is clear - the oval must be filled in and the candidates name must be written in as it appears on the write-in declaration. No exceptions.

I have no preference between Miller and Murkowski, however I do have a clear preference for adherence to the law, not what a judge thinks it should be.

As pointed out, the phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution. Using it to support court decisions is the equivalent of allowing a vote in Alaska written in as Mussolini to count for Murkowski, after all, they both begin with M and end with i - wouldn't that be a clear indication of intent?

Do I understand this correctly? In order for a write-in vote to count, the candidate (unless it's for Governor or Lt. Governor) has to have filed some sort of "write-in candidacy" form?

(I'm guessing, if true, that was intended to keep people from voting for Mickey Mouse)

And, if I get the gist of the argument, some judge is unilaterally deciding that an election is suddenly horseshoes or hand-grenades (i.e. 'close' counts)?