+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 41

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling in his grave as to how his letter containing the phrase has been misconstrued. The "separation of church and state" is not in any of the official U.S. government documents.

    http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_...rch_state.html

  2. #2
    tommywho70x Guest

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Well Boone, you've certainly picked yourself a hairball topic to introduce yourself to the SCAM Politics 'Sub-Forum'.

    Are you going to tell us why you believe this to be so or are you just shilling for Liberty Council trying to shakedown some online donations by posting their link on discussion forums?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling in his grave as to how his letter containing the phrase has been misconstrued. The "separation of church and state" is not in any of the official U.S. government documents.

    http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_...rch_state.html
    Not quite accurate but OK.

    The founding fathers were religious men, but they didn't want government telling the people how to worship.

    Lady Mod

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling in his grave as to how his letter containing the phrase has been misconstrued. The "separation of church and state" is not in any of the official U.S. government documents.
    http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_...rch_state.html
    Hi Boone,

    Well, that is not accurate. Like Lady Mod said, the Founding Fathers were religious men, but did make clear the state should not have an established religion. Their close relatives, colleagues, and friends, put it in a modern colloquialism; "Been there, done that."

    Europe was rife with religious faction, influence, domination. People were jailed, interrogated, their property confiscated, tortured, and executed, because of the power of the "church." Whether the church was Catholic or Protestant, they wielded enormous amounts of power, and they USED it to its fullest extent. So the Founding Fathers (and Mothers too, darn it :p) wanted something that was diametrically opposed to the European system.

    America was a BOLD experiment. For the most part, religion has been a serious forced in world politics, societies, and cultures since man stood up right. The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are unique, and remain living and working documents, ~230 years after their first presentation (the Magna Carta, notwithstanding).

    So in fact, T. Jefferson, to some extent, did what he set out to do, put in place, a secular government.

    DeeDee1965

    Sorry about the lesson, Boone might be a History Professor for all I know. ;)

  5. #5
    tommywho70x Guest

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Hey DeeDee,

    Yeah, darnit, let's not forget the mothers, like Martha Custis, Dolly Madison and Betsy Ross!

    Those male supremacist patriarchal humanist Christian democracy freaks always have to be reminded that the Father God and his son Jesus need the Mother Earth for any of their magic to work on us and that they would just be little stains on their pappy's undershorts if not for their mothers.

    Your posting is very accurate and insightful except for one little point that jumped out at me: did you mean to refer to the great American experiment in the PAST TENSE or did that just slip in there by accident?

    I'd still like to know if our new Junior Member, Boone has any opinion do add to this or if he was just trolling us for donations to support Jerry Falwell's attorneys?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    I am back online- just turned on my 'puter, and came straight to this site, like I often have done, for months now. I am a FEMALE who hasn't had a username for too long now; I decided recently that since I may have some things of value to add here (and this site has helped me, as well), that I might contribute...this site not only uncovers scams, but gets people to think.

    Wow...I expected that this hefty topic might rub a few people the wrong way, and I apologize for that; but, I feel a person should "stand up" for what they believe in, and also keep an open mind. The mind is like a parachute- it works best when it is open.

    Last night it dawned on me that one of the biggest scams ever may be in place in this country. That is why I started this thread. This concept has been presented to me more than once, here and there, from what I deem to be credible sources- that is one reason I feel that there is a strong proponent to it.

    I am not/was not trying to solicit donations for anybody or any entity- I wanted to reference a credible source to back-up my posted information. I can see where someone would be skeptical these days, especially in the face of information that contradicts a long-held belief. On the other side of the coin, I feel that is a cheap shot to undermine the gyst, weightiness, and possible implications of this message.

    Yes, I do believe that it could be true- history was never a strong topic of mine (that's right, I am not a history professor, or a professor of any sort). I do profess that I still have a lot to learn on that topic, and am open to learning more history.

    The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other documents that the founding fathers wrote up. (And I should add here that I agree- the WOMEN that contributed to the building of this great country of ours are not acclaimed near enough). It is a fact that the phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

    Here is another site that has some information on the topic:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

    I have yet to skim the whole document, but picked this particular one (at random) without looking at the many other sites that came up on my search of "separation of church and state." Just like I did yesterday- keeping in mind who I feel has integrity and credibility. (I use dogpile.com for searches).

    Could it be possible that a myth could be blown out of proportion, heavily propogated for years, and used with a wrong interpretation to fulfill personal agendas? Maybe even in this case, I believe so. I have felt for a long time that many of the founding fathers words have been misused in the way they were not intended. And, of course, because we are in a free country, you may feel different, and that is ok. It is an intention here to point out the value of fact-finding.

    Like sojustask stated, it is that, "the founding fathers were religious men, but they didn't want government telling the people how to worship." That point is real valid. But to take the idea and twist it around the other way, to give a different meaning of the gyst of it, is, well, what's a good word...blasphemous???

    I have tried to speak from the heart, and the head here.

  7. #7
    tommywho70x Guest

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Hi Boone, sorry if my response appeared rude or attempting to undermine the topic's importance -- that was definitely not my intent -- it is a vitally important subject that merits discussion.

    i was just playing the skeptic to draw you back out with your own views on the matter and to make sure that the posting wasn't indeed some sly ploy to lead us to that site so that we might donate to them.

    being somewhat pioneer-minded, i naturally associated your username with Daniel Boone. i almost wrote he/she to cover my butt on your gender but decided not to because of the transsexual association the wackos would form in their excuses for minds.

    it is ironic to me that the very religious persecution
    Christian Europeans fled from in the first place is now so central to the doctrine of the Bush family Christian Democracy regime and "Ownership Society" church-state fiefdoms being so rabidly defended by the "Moral Majority" which is neither moral or the majority.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Hi Boone,

    The framers of the Constitution did not agree on everything that went in to it. There was debate, arguing, disagreement and finally, compromise.

    True, in reference to the 1st Amendment, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    Letter to the Danbury Baptists

    And true, this statement is NOT in any of the documents that rule the land. I think the real thrust is the framers, were (and are and will, Tommy :rolleyes: ) tried to make a document that reflected a secular government. A government that represented "ALL" the people. Without establishing a state religion.

    Groups use the quote to bolster their own agenda, but the intention is clear. The U. S of A. was to have a *secular* government.

    DeeDee1965

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,088

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Looks like somebody needs to explain this concept to that idiot in the White House:

    Bush Criticized Over Emphasis on Religion of Nominee

    By ELISABETH BUMILLER
    Published: October 13, 2005

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - President Bush prompted criticism from the right and the left on Wednesday after he said White House officials had told conservative supporters about the religious beliefs of his latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, as part of an "outreach effort" to explain who she is.

    "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background, they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

    Mr. Bush made his comments only weeks after some conservatives declared that any discussion of the religion of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. should be off limits in his confirmation process and that questions about his views amounted to an unconstitutional "religious test" of his faith as a Roman Catholic.

    The president spoke on the same day that James C. Dobson, the founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, said in remarks broadcast on his organization's radio program that Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, had assured him that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a member of "a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."

    Mr. Dobson said Mr. Rove had given him the assurances in a conversation on Oct. 1, two days before Mr. Bush announced that Ms. Miers was his choice for the court.

    Mr. Dobson's private conversation with Mr. Rove had become an enormous source of speculation among both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Dobson said he was revealing the substance of the conversation because both parties were demanding to know what he knew and because Mr. Rove had given him permission to do so.

    Mr. Dobson set off the frenzy last week when he said that he was supporting Ms. Miers because of something he had been told in confidence by the White House, a statement that led Democrats and Republicans alike to threaten to call him before the Judiciary Committee to testify.

    A questionnaire sent to Ms. Miers by the Senate Judiciary Committee touched on her views and the internal White House process of her nomination. Among many queries, the questionnaire asks Ms. Miers to list all interviews and communications she had with anyone in the executive office of the president or at the Justice Department about her nomination.

    The questionnaire, a standard part of the confirmation process, also asks Ms. Miers if anyone at the White House or Justice Department ever discussed with her any case or legal issue in a manner that appeared to solicit her opinion.

    The White House efforts to promote Ms. Miers's faith were criticized on Wednesday not only by groups on the left and the right, but also by Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Some religious conservatives denounced Mr. Durbin when he tried to have a private discussion with Chief Justice Roberts about their shared Catholic religion during Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation process.

    "The White House is basically saying that because of Harriet Miers's religious beliefs, you can trust her," Mr. Durbin said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. "That to me is a complete reversal not only of the history of choosing Supreme Court nominees, but of where the White House was weeks ago with the nomination of John Roberts."

    Joseph Cella, the president of the conservative Catholic group Fidelis, said in a Wednesday editorial in the National Review Online that "how Miers lives her faith should have no place or bearing in her confirmation hearings" and concluded that "faith is too precious to be used as a trumpet or as a sword by those who either support or oppose a nominee."

    Mr. Dobson also said on the radio program that Mr. Rove had told him that some other candidates for the Supreme Court had taken themselves out of the running because "the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

    Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that "a couple" of people had withdrawn from a process that he said had become "rather ugly." Mr. McClellan would not name them, but he said, in response to a question about whether the process was keeping qualified people away: "Washington scares good people away? Is that new?"

    White House officials said that they still expected confirmation hearings to begin in mid-November and that Ms. Miers was spending this week completing the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee about her background, financial dealings and career, including nearly 30 years as a lawyer in Texas and five years as staff secretary, deputy chief of staff and counsel at the White House.

    The questionnaire also asks Ms. Miers to explain how she would resolve any conflicts of interest "that may arise by virtue of your service in the Bush administration, as George W. Bush's personal lawyer, or as the lawyer for George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns."

    Stepping up a potential conflict with the administration over access to Ms. Miers's work in the White House, the questionnaire further asks Ms. Miers to "describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions" and to provide any material related to those issues.

    Last week at a news conference, Mr. Bush signaled that he would most likely reject any requests from the Senate for documents written by Ms. Miers during her time in the White House.

    David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting for this article.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Quote Originally Posted by boone
    I am back online- just turned on my 'puter, and came straight to this site, like I often have done, for months now. I am a FEMALE who hasn't had a username for too long now; I decided recently that since I may have some things of value to add here (and this site has helped me, as well), that I might contribute...this site not only uncovers scams, but gets people to think.

    Wow...I expected that this hefty topic might rub a few people the wrong way, and I apologize for that; but, I feel a person should "stand up" for what they believe in, and also keep an open mind. The mind is like a parachute- it works best when it is open.

    Last night it dawned on me that one of the biggest scams ever may be in place in this country. That is why I started this thread. This concept has been presented to me more than once, here and there, from what I deem to be credible sources- that is one reason I feel that there is a strong proponent to it.

    I am not/was not trying to solicit donations for anybody or any entity- I wanted to reference a credible source to back-up my posted information. I can see where someone would be skeptical these days, especially in the face of information that contradicts a long-held belief. On the other side of the coin, I feel that is a cheap shot to undermine the gyst, weightiness, and possible implications of this message.

    Yes, I do believe that it could be true- history was never a strong topic of mine (that's right, I am not a history professor, or a professor of any sort). I do profess that I still have a lot to learn on that topic, and am open to learning more history.

    The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other documents that the founding fathers wrote up. (And I should add here that I agree- the WOMEN that contributed to the building of this great country of ours are not acclaimed near enough). It is a fact that the phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

    Here is another site that has some information on the topic:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

    I have yet to skim the whole document, but picked this particular one (at random) without looking at the many other sites that came up on my search of "separation of church and state." Just like I did yesterday- keeping in mind who I feel has integrity and credibility. (I use dogpile.com for searches).

    Could it be possible that a myth could be blown out of proportion, heavily propogated for years, and used with a wrong interpretation to fulfill personal agendas? Maybe even in this case, I believe so. I have felt for a long time that many of the founding fathers words have been misused in the way they were not intended. And, of course, because we are in a free country, you may feel different, and that is ok. It is an intention here to point out the value of fact-finding.

    Like sojustask stated, it is that, "the founding fathers were religious men, but they didn't want government telling the people how to worship." That point is real valid. But to take the idea and twist it around the other way, to give a different meaning of the gyst of it, is, well, what's a good word...blasphemous???

    I have tried to speak from the heart, and the head here.
    The exact phrase may not be in any of the documents that the founding fathers wrote, but the idea of separation of church and state is there. Like so many legal documents, the Constitution is open to interpretation. The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, knew this and so provided the answer to any questions which would come up about this document. That answer was a court, the Supreme Court, and their job is to provide an answer to the question of what the Constitution means. Many of us will not always agree with the decision made, but such is life and that decision is what it is until it has been changed. So, the question is, Does the Constitution provide for separation of church and state? The answer is yes, because the Supreme Court says so.

    U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
    (arranged by date)

    McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

    Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

    Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

    Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

    Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

    Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

    Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

    Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

    Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

    Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

    Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

    State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

    Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

    Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

    Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

    Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

    Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

    State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

    Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

    Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

    Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

    Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

    Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

    Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

    Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

    City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
    As an aside, I think we need separation between church and coffee shop. I read an article the other day where Starbucks is going to start putting God filled quotes on its coffee cups. As the pirate man will tell you, going to Starbucks for coffee on Friday mornings is part of the unemployed liberals routine and pwrone will let you know that liberals are godless heathens. So that puts us in quite a quandry. :)

    Starbucks stirs things up with God quotes on cups.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    I have considered all viewpoints and available facts; this write-up makes sense, too, I think.

    ------------------------------------------------

    Two Court Decisions Spotlight Conflicting Worldviews

    by Tony Beam

    More and more the American court system is shaping the cultural identity of American society. As the culture war spreads from the halls of academia to the halls of Congress, Federal judges are becoming more emboldened in their willingness to step into and attempt to end national debates on controversial issues.

    The most recent examples come from court rooms in Mercer, Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio. The two decisions reflect the two paths that are open to America in terms of proper interpretation of the United States Constitution. In Kentucky, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a courthouse display in Mercer County of the Ten Commandments is constitutional. The disputed document hangs with other historical documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said, "A reasonable observer would not view this display as an attempt by Mercer County to establish religion." Well stop the presses....we finally have a Federal judge who understands what it means to be reasonable.

    But Judge Suhrheinrich didn't stop there. He went on to chastise the ACLU for presenting flawed logic to try to persuade the court to remove the documents. Referring to the ACLU's usual arguments Suhrheinrich said, "the separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional construct that has grow tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand separation between church and state...our nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion...thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible."

    How astoundingly refreshing it is to hear a federal judge who understands the intent of the framers of the Constitution. By referring to the phrase "separation of church and state" as an "extra-constitutional construct" Judge Suhrheinrich joins a growing group of constitutional defenders who are willing to unmask the deceptive use of Thomas Jefferson's infamous "wall of separation" letter as an example of constitutional law. The United States Constitution does not now and has not ever contained the phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state." It was jammed into the Constitution by a majority of liberal judges in 1947 in the Supreme Court case Everson v. The Board of Education. The decision reversed 150 years of court precedent and elevated the personal correspondence of then President Thomas Jefferson to the level of constitutional law.

    Judge Suhrheinrich and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals restores some sense to the insanity that has recently been the hallmark of the court system in America. In Lawrence v. Texas the Texas Supreme Court found a constitutional right to sodemy in the Texas Constitution. In Kelo et al v. City of New London the United States Supreme Court ignored the Fifth Amendment and gave its blessing to developers who want to pad their pocketbooks by "developing" land they "legally" steal from homeowners.

    This leads me to the other court case which ironically was decided on the same day. In Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, U.S. District Judge John Jones demonstrated a totally different worldview when he chastised Christians on the Dover School Board for supposedly lying about their intentions concerning their desire for Intelligent Design to be taught alongside evolution. Judge Jones said, "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."

    In that statement, Judges Jones revealed his bias by assuming that anyone who challenges evolution must have a religious agenda hidden in their lunch box. He could not possibly know the motive of the School Board members was anything more than their stated motive of giving students in Dover the whole story when it comes to viable theories of origins. Judge Jones represents a worldview which assumes anyone who questions Darwinism must be a religious nut who lies about their motives. There was absolutely no religious language in the school board science curriculum. Not one reference to God or to any Supreme Being can be found. The religious motivation of the Dover School Board existed only in the mind of a biased Judge who sees evolution as dogma rather than science.

    Judge Jones also said in his ruling, "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an un-testable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific positions." Is Judge Jones to ignorant to realize the major tenants of Darwinism are impossible to recreate and are therefore un-testable? Is he so blinded by his personal bias that he doesn't know evolution has never been recreated in a laboratory?

    Rather than discuss the scientific merits of Intelligent Design, Judge Jones is perfectly content in his ruling to resort to the name calling of School Board members. Yet he believes he has the supernatural ability to read their minds and discern their true motivations.

    These two court cases reveal the two worldviews which are currently locked in desperate battle for cultural dominance. If the Judges Jones' of the world win the day and their worldview becomes dominant all public references to religion will be removed. Soon, all private expressions of religion will follow. If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision represents the winning judicial philosophy religious expression will be respected and protected. Our role in this make or break cultural struggle for the heart and soul of America is to know what is happening and be willing to hold pressure our elected leaders to reign in a court system that is out of control and at the same time applaud pockets of judicial common sense when they appear.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    MS.Boone!what the H E L L do court battles have to do with truth!?you never did explain your avatar to me!hehe!!i like it by the way!!beats quertols flashy whatever!!hehe!!is faith made strong by force or by resistance!?what does Job say about faith!?and what is the valley of the shadow of darkness mean!?just kidden.....kitten!hehe!!if i go to the cross do i have to floss!?you are one special lady with me!!ok,just ignore me i'm a total jerk!!ask anyone here!!hehe!!
    Last edited by lexx; 12-30-2005 at 02:40 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    The title of this topic is correct. The notion of a "separation" between "church" and "state" is a myth.

    Nor does the first amendment establish a "separation of church and state", as commonly said. What it does is to recognize the right of the individual to choose which religious beliefs he or she will choose to espouse. The government shall make no laws affecting the establishment of religion.

    That's not "separation of church and state".

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to go and ask the local pastor of any 501(c)(3) church why the IRS will take away their tax-exempt status if they say something the government doesn't like, such as, for example, criticizing the war on terrorism.

    i.e.: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Dear Lexx:

    I am sorry that you have thus far missed my explanation on my avatar- I replied to your question several days ago. It is on the same thread that you asked me about it...now you've got a treasure hunt...lol...it is on this site SOMEWHERE...LOL...don't be hard on yourself and call yourself a total jerk. It is a person's choice to be a jerk, or not be one...it is your call. "To be or not to be, that is the question." Thanks for the compliments...but kitten? NAHHHHHHHHH, not!

    It is important to floss, and we all got crosses in life to bear.

    One less cross if you regularly floss - albatross, bean-bag toss, fire your boss, an old program is dos, the ol' Bonanza shows had Hoss- ahh, my JAVA is kickin' in...my drink of choice always. LOL.

    I think I can answer some of yer questions...maybe...faith is made strong by desire and belief...don't ya think??? But u tell me, what DOES Job say about it?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    330

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    Well said, Yirmeyahu! Bravo!

    Thanks for providing the link. That article details a perfect example of the basic tenents of Christianity being stomped on- in Houses of the Lord and also, as to what Chaplains in the military are allowed to say. Here are two related articles I cut and paste (what are men of the cloth in the military supposed to preach about? Worshipping trees?)

    -------------------------------------------------------

    December 23, 2005

    Chaplain on hunger strike to protest ‘religious harassment’

    By Laura M. Colarusso
    Times staff writer

    Chaplain (Lt.) Gordon Klingenschmitt, center, prays with supporters outside the White House on Thursday evening. Klingenschmitt is on a hunger strike to protest what he says is a Navy prohibition on his ability to pray in the name of Jesus. — M. Scott Mahaskey / Times staff photo

    A Navy chaplain has stopped eating to protest what he calls “religious harassment” in the military.
    Chaplain (Lt.) Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical Episcopal priest, said Navy officials are trying to force him out of the service because he wants to pray in the name of Jesus.

    “I will not eat again until the president of the United States gives me back my uniform and allows me to pray in Jesus’ name,” Klingenschmitt said with the White House in the background. “For me, it’s a matter of conscience.”

    Klingenschmitt’s hunger strike began Dec. 20. Evangelicals such as Klingenschmitt say the First Amendment protects their right to pray in Jesus’ name in any setting. Others argue that more secular prayers are appropriate for gatherings of people of multiple faiths.

    “It’s a very sacred command of scripture that cannot be violated,” said Klingenschmitt, who is drinking only water during his hunger strike.

    His convictions may cost the 37-year-old Air Force Academy graduate his job. As of Dec. 22, the Navy has not renewed his contract, which expires Dec. 31, he said.

    Navy spokesman Lt. William Marks said Klingenschmitt is still an active-duty chaplain, and is not facing disciplinary action, in part because he is currently in leave status.

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Navy Chaplain Enters Tenth Day of Hunger Strike
    Chaplain Klingenschmitt is asking President Bush to issue an Executive Order allowing military chaplains to pray according to their individual faith traditions.

    To: National Desk

    Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, 202-547-1735, 540-538-4741 cell; Chaplain Klingenschmitt, The Chaplin's Website, 719-360-5132

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Chaplain Klingenschmitt has been forbidden to pray or take part in public worship while he is still in uniform. ( See letter at www.earnedmedia.org/navyletter.htm )

    Chaplain Kingenschmitt comments, " I am asking the President of the United States to give me back my uniform and let me publicly pray in the name of Jesus. Since 1860, the law has allowed military chaplains to conduct public worship according to their own faith tradition."

    Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, who had joined Chaplain Klingenschmitt on his hunger strike states, " We ask President Bush to issue an Executive Order allowing military chaplains to pray according to their own faith traditions. It should never be the role of government to dictate to American citizens, especially the clergy, on how they are to publicly pray."

    So far, 74 members of the Congress, 6 members of the Senate and 173,000 American citizens have asked President Bush to stand for religious freedom and issue this order.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: "Separation of Church and State" a Myth

    If the "State" tells me I can not pratice my religion by praying in a public place, is that not a violation of the same First Amendment? We do have the right to Freedom of Speech according to the same Amendment that is used to say we can not pray in school for example.

Similar Threads

  1. How SOME are "Confronting" Westboro "Baptist" Church
    By conserv4ever in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-04-2014, 09:34 PM
  2. Separation of Church and State Scam
    By Carlin in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-2014, 01:22 PM
  3. Separation of Church and State
    By Sharky in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 06:21 PM
  4. GOP Senate Hopeful Disputes Separation Of Church & State
    By Phinnly Slash Buster in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 11:52 PM
  5. Separation of Church and State and the "Treaty of Tripoli"
    By yossarian in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-24-2006, 08:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 1st amendment, about, academy, acceptance, access, accident, account, accurate, acknowledge, act, acted, action, actions, active, adam, add, administration, advance, advice, adviser, aff, affairs, affidavit, age, agendas, agreed, agreement, ain, all, alliance, allowed, allowing, also, ame, amendment, america, american, and, animals, announced, another, answer, anybody, anyone, apologize, appeared, applicants, appropriate, are, article, association, assurance, ate, ation, attempt, attorneys, authority, ava, aware, away, azi, back, ban, banning, based, basic, basically, bat, bean, bear, beats, become, becomes, bee, been, bel, believe, belt, benefits, best, bet, better, biggest, bills, bit, blogs, blown, bonanza, boo, books, bravo, break, bro, broadcast, brother, building, bury, bush family, businesses, buying, called, calling, calls, can, cannot, care, career, carry, carta, case, catholic, cbi, cease, cell, censor, center, central, cer, ceremony, challenge, chance, checking, chief, choose, chris, christ, christia, christian, christianity, christians, church, cincinnati, circuit, citi, citizens, civil, claim, claiming, clo, close, club, coffee, coin, coll, com, comes, comme, comments, commit, common, communications, complain, complete, completely, compliments, con, concept, concerned, confidence, confirmed, conflicts, congressional, conservative, conservatives, context, continental, continue, contributed, conversation, convictions, corporate, correct, cost, council, country, county, course, courts, cover, crazy, creation, credibility, credible, cross, culture, cut, dame, damen, dan, daniel, dar, dark, darkness, darn, date, day, days, dear, debates, debating, december, decided, decision, declared, ded, defended, defends, definition, demand, demanding, democracy, democrats, demons, department, der, des, desire, desperate, development, did, didn, different, ding, director, discussion, display, displayed, disputed, district, doc, docume, document, documentation, documents, doesn, domination, don, dona, donations, dos, doubt, dow, down, draw, drink, drinking, driving, dry, duc, ear, early, earth, easily, eed, elected, electio, ells, end, ended, ends, ene, enter, entry, environment, esq, essential, establishment, european, eva, evangelicals, evening, events, ever, everywhere, examples, exclusive, executive, executive order, exempt, experience, experiment, explain, extra, eyes, fac, face, facing, faith, falwell, familiar, families, family, famous, fast, father, fathers, favor, favorite, favors, federal, feel, felt, female, fifth, figures, fina, financial, finding, finds, first, first amendment, five, flash, fled, focus, for, forever, forget, form, forma, forum, found, foundation, friday, fringe, front, future, gave, gel, gender, george, george w. bush, getting, giving, god, going, gone, good, gordo, got, gra, graham, gran, grant, great, group, groups, grow, growing, had, han, hand, happening, happiness, hard, has, hasn, head, heard, heart, held, helped, her, hey, hidden, hide, him, his, holds, holmes, holy, horrible, hose, house, houses, how, html, huge, huma, hunger, hus, husband, ial, ian, ica, identity, idiot, ignorant, ignore, ignored, ill, ime, important, inc., individual, individuals, infinite, influence, info, ing, insanity, instruction, inter, interest, interested, internal, invited, involved, involves, ion, isn, issue, issues, its, jail, jailed, jan, java, jefferson, jerk, jerry, jesus, jew, john, join, joined, joins, jones, judge, judiciary, judiciary committee, just, keep, kind, kit, kitten, knew, know, knows, lady, land, las, last, latest, laura, lawrence, lead, leaders, leads, led, legally, les, less, lesson, let, letter, lexx, liberal, liberals, liberty, license, light, like, limited, limits, line, link, lives, living, local, logic, lol, london, long, longer, lord, los, lose, losing, loss, lot, lunch, lying, machinery, mag, magic, mail, main, make, makes, making, male, mankind, mantra, many, mar, march, marriage, maryland, matter, may, mea, meaning, member, members, mental, mention, mid, might, mind, minister, modern, moment, mor, moral, more, morning, motives, moves, much, multiple, myt, myth, name, national, nature, navy, nazi, need, needed, ner, never, new, news conference, nigh, night, nobody, nominatio, nomination, norm, not, nov, november, now, october, office, officers, official, officials, ohio, oliver, once, onde, onli, online, only, open, opinion, oppression, order, ore, org, organization, original, our, out, over, own, pace, parachute, part, parties, party, pas, pass, passed, past, paste, pastor, patrick, perfect, perfectly, permission, persecution, person, personal, php, picked, picture, pioneer, place, playing, ploy, point, policy, politics, pos, position, possible, post, posted, posting, posts, potential, pounds, power, pra, pray, presence, presiden, principles, private, process, promote, promotion, property, protected, protects, proves, provoke, public, punishment, pure, push, putting, qualified, question, questions, quot, quote, quotes, raise, rallies, random, rated, read, real, really, reason, reasonable, received, red, reference, references, regime, region, related, release, religious, religious freedom, remains, remarks, removed, renewed, reporters, reporting, represents, respond, response, rev, revealed, revealing, reveals, reward, rey, ric, rich, richard, rick, right, ripped, risk, role, rolling, room, rooms, rove, roy, rude, run, sacred, san, scam, scary, scientific, scott, search, secondary, secretary, selling, sen, senate, senate judiciary committee, sense, separation, served, service, set, shared, sharing, shop, short, shot, should, shouldn, shows, sign, signed, signing, silence, silent, simple, simply, site, sly, social security, sole, some, sometimes, son, soo, sorry, source, sources, speak, speaks, special, spokesman, sport, spotlight, staff, standard, star, started, state, stated, statement, states, status, steal, step, stood, stop, stopped, story, stra, strike, students, subs, such, sui, super, supernatural, support, supporting, suppose, supposed, supreme, supreme court, sure, surrendered, suspended, system, taiwan, take, taken, taking, tal, talking, teal, ted, tell, telling, tells, tent, terms, test, testify, tex, texas, text, than, thank, that, the, themselves, theory, there, they, thing, things, think, thinks, this, those, thought, thread, threaten, thugs, thursday, til, time, times, title, today, told, tony, too, tor, tortured, total, totally, trac, tracks, transsexual, tre, tribute, tried, trolling, try, trying, turned, twist, two, u.s. government, ugly, una, unconstitutional, uni, union, unique, unit, united, united states, unmask, ure, url, usa, used, user, usual, valley, ven, vicious, victory, view, viola, violated, virginia, virtue, voted, wall, wan, wanted, was, water, way, wear, wearing, wednesday, weeks, welcome, were, western, what, when, who, why, will, wilson, winning, wire, wis, with, withdraw, woma, wome, won, work, working, works, wow, write, writing, wrong, wrote, year, years, yer, yesterday, yet, you, younger, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •