"Religious" politicians with real or expedient beliefs assume their private connection with some god gives their perspective and policies an aura of godliness.

Moderates tend to give this exploitation of religion and fudging of the separation of church and state a free ride.

This too generous tolerance of stone age superstition and adoration for the supernatural is a real danger to the United States and similar democracies.

Time to stop being polite to the loons who think mixing God, Gunpowder, Schools, Science, and Government is appropriate

If the American people want it, then it is appropriate. If Americans don't like politicians doing this, then they wouldn't vote for them.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

That's the whole idea. Good point.

And I think that it's time to stop being polite to those who want to change history. Seperation of church and state is not the law, it is not the history of the law. They are words taken out of context from a letter.

Where is God written? All three of our founding documents. Is there a signifigance in this? Maybe in that the MAJORITY (that's over 50%) of our founding fathers were CHRISTIAN PASTORS/PREACHERS!!!

You might also do well to notice that the First Continental Congress, comprised largely of those who founded this nation, made among it's first orders of business to appoint CHRISITIAN ministers to preside over each house, declared days of Fasting and Prayer, have opened and closed in prayer since their inception, and our first Congress ordered the importing of some 20,000 Bibles for our soldiers fighting the British. Seperation of church and state? You've got it all wrong buddy. Stop trying to change history - it's what it is.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is being scammed, just like the rest of us. In a moment I will prove that with just one word. Yes, just one word.

As we learn in high school, judges are the interpreters of our laws. They don't write laws, they interpret them. Judges read the words the legislative branch has written and passed; examine the obvious meaning of those words and the context in which they are found; and when there is an ambiguity, they research and consider the legislative history surrounding the text of the law to discover what the legislators meant when they passed it.

Legislative history is the record of the committee hearings in which the law originally was discussed, before it was sent by the committee to the floor of the larger legislative body for consideration. Legislative history also includes the speeches given on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate before the final vote on the law occurs. Committee testimony and floor speeches are often used to clarify exactly what the framers of the law intended, when they drafted it and adopted it into law.

In the case of the Constitution, part of the legislative record are the Federalist Papers, which were newspaper columns written by supporters of the Constitution, explaining to the people of the thirteen states why they should ratify the Constitution and give limited powers to a newly formed federal government.

By now, most conservatives are aware that the words "separation of church and state" appear no where in the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers. They are not the law; neither are they part of the legislative history of the law. The doctrine or separation of church and state is a fabrication of blatantly liberal, anti-Christian, dishonest, activist judges. In fact, the words,"separation of church and state" are only words taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. They exist nowhere in the laws of our nation.

Earlier, I said I would prove that the doctrine of separation of church and state is a scam, and that I would do so with one word; just one word. That is easily done. On a recent radio show, I handed a co-host a copy of the U.S. Constitution and asked him to read the First Amendment out loud over the air. He began to read, but I stopped him after the first word. "That's enough. You have read enough. You don't have to read further. You have settled the debate already," I said.

What was that one word that ended the debate over separation of church and state. That word is "Congress."

Read it for yourself. The First Amendment says that congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It doesn't say that states cannot establish a religion or observe religious holidays. It doesn't say that cities, counties, or school districts cannot show respect for the Bible or Christianity. The First Amendment doesn't imply in even the vaguest way that it is unconstitutional for a city to erect a manger scene in the town square at Christmas or for a school teacher to offer up a prayer to Almighty God at a graduation ceremony or before daily classes begin. You cannot get that out of the First Amendment, even if you stretch.

It's right there, plain as day. The First Amendment only limits Congress; no one else. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. But, you say, the Founders must have wanted to prevent governments at all levels from showing preference for any one religion over others. Not so. The states would not have given Congress any authority over their actions regarding such matters.

At the time the Constitution was ratified by the thirteen original states, not only did Congress hold long, fervent prayer meetings and quote directly from scripture in speeches and floor debates, but a number of the original 13 states had in existence official state churches with official names like The Church of Maryland. Official state churches. And they were overtly Christian.

Those state churches were not limited by the First Amendment, nor did they cease to exist after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because the First Amendment did not affect them. The First Amendment was designed solely to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church like the Church of England; a political church that many of the colonists had come to the New World to escape. The Founders merely wanted to prevent the federal government from forcing one sect of Christianity upon the entire country.

If you think the Founders supported the doctrine of separation of church and state, consider these quotes:

The U.S. Supreme Court in The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. said, "Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind." Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court once thought that the U.S. could not have good government without religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court also said in the same case, "Our laws and our institution must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Has one word of the Constitution been changed since the court issued this decision in 1892, a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, declaring that America is emphatically Christian?

Consider these words from the Northwest Ordinance, approved by Congress in 1789, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, school and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." There it is again, we must have religion if we are going to have good government, and they tie religion to schools. In fact, the very first English Bibles printed in America were paid for by the U.S. Congress with public money, and inside the cover of those Bibles it says that they were for use in our schools.

John Adams, our second president said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the House in the early days of the Republic, said, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet." Judge Roy Moore is right. The Bible is the basis for our laws. We end up with more government and less freedom when we refuse to be governed by morality and religion.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American Civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institution...upon the capacity of of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

George Washington, our first president and the father of our country, said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Consider these additional quotes that demonstrate that the Founders were overtly Christian, not just religious men. Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been offered asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Multi-culturalism to the Founders did not mean that we ceased to be a Christian nation, but that we were tolerant of others and allowed them to worship freely. We did not force them to become Christians and they did not force our nation to cease to be Christian.

The final version of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Part of the legislative history of the First Amendment includes a longer version that included the words, "...nor shall any national religion be established...". That's what the First Amendment was about, prohibiting Congress from establishing a national church.

Liberal judges, ACLU lawyers, and liberal law professors have stolen the heritage of this nation. They have taken a clearly worded provision of the Constitution and twisted it to rob of us of the very underpinnings of our government and our society. They didn't do it through legislative acts, adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people. In fact, no words have changed in the First Amendment. The original words have been given radically different nonsensical meanings. Liberal judges have taken prayer out of our schools and manger scenes out of our town squares by blatant dishonesty. They have taken a constitutional provision that clearly limits Congress and only Congress and applied it to states, cities, counties and school districts.

Folks, it is impossible for us to save this country from those who would destroy it and pervert it into something radically different from what the Founder envisioned, if we do not rein in the power of overreaching, activist judges, who no longer interpret the clear meaning of the law, but pervert it and twist it. Judges today twist the law to make it say what they want it to say; to accomplish the end they desire. To that end they are no longer judges, but thieves, unworthy of the robes they wear.






Copy and paste, but you can look up everything it says, I know of alot of what it references and more. Modern idea of seperation of church and state, where religion and government are supposed to be seperated is absolutely bullcrap.

Some of the states had state religions I believe. And as you say, God appears a lot on your early documents, it's even (disgustingly) on your money.
But I think that's irrelavant. America is a federal, democratic state. That means every state should decide what it wants in terms of religion, democratically. Federal things should be decided democratically by the whole populatin. Why does it matter what Americans wanted over 200 years ago? What matters is what Americans want now.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Oz View Post
If the American people want it, then it is appropriate. If Americans don't like politicians doing this, then they wouldn't vote for them.
Troianii responds:That's the whole idea. Good point.
Yet further he makes the statement: "Folks, it is impossible for us to save this country from those who would destroy it and pervert it into something radically different from what the Founder envisioned, if we do not rein in the power of overreaching, activist judges, who no longer interpret the clear meaning of the law, but pervert it and twist it. Judges today twist the law to make it say what they want it to say; to accomplish the end they desire. "

Our founding fathers allowed choice - much like the God has in allowing us to believe in Him or not. The judges you dislike are there for the same reasons that any are there - they were either voted in or appointed by a politician who had been voted in. And there are special interest groups for every opinion and belief out there - and money backing both sides rather well. I refuse to believe that groups like the ACLU are so God-awful strong and influencial that the powers-who-oppose cannot find legal brilliance and financial backing of their own to refute any and all effort.

As far as I am concerned, criticism about the ACLU reminds me of the line "I think the man doth protest too much" or plain ol' sour grapes. After all, no one complains unless you are being effective.

__________________
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Voltaire

Why is that disgusting ?

Would it be ok if it said "fuck yo mama" on it ?

It does, in an ironic way, evoke an image of Jesus tipping over the tables of moneylenders in the temple.

Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

It's sort of like distributing condoms with a picture of the Virgin Mary on them.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of, "You cannot serve both God and Mammon." It's rather vulgar to associate God with money.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

No, actually it doesn't. The attempt to unite this phrase on our money to an incident where jesus tipped over tables of money lenders IS "disgusting" though.


What's disgusting is the motivation behind it.



Asinine and ridiculous. Comparing the phrase "in God we trust" printed on coinage to putting a picture of the virgin Mary on a condom wrapper.



Disgusting. Both of you. Since we're talking disgusting here.