What Do We Mean by “Separation of Church and State”?
May 11th, 2008 at 05:36pm Mark Noonan
This subject brought up by this article:
England’s leading Catholic prelate has warned against pressure to make the nation’s public life a “God-free zone.”
In a lecture delivered at Westminster Cathedral, as part of a series of talks on religion and public life, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said that he saw an odd situation in Great Britain, in which widespread interest in religious affairs contrasts with a “considerable spiritual homelessness.”
“Many people have a sense of being in a sort of exile from faith-guided experience,” the cardinal said. “They think that even if they wanted to believe, faith is no longer an option for them.”
The problem, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor suggested, can be traced to “the privatization of religion today.” He explained that too frequently, “religion comes to be treated as a matter of personal need rather than as a truth that makes an unavoidable claim on us.” The problem is aggravated, he said, by “various attempts to eliminate the Christian voice from the public forum.”
To counteract this unhealthy trend, the cardinal said, believers should be forthright in proclaiming their faith. Public discussion of religious beliefs is always difficult, he said, and he urged the faithful to be respectful toward those with other perspectives.
Yet Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor suggested that critics of religion should gain a more accurate understanding of the faith they have rejected. “Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins does not believe in?” he asked the audience. “The God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don’t believe in either.”
One of the more sad things we come across is people in adamant opposition to things we Christians don’t do or believe in - and this cuts right across ideological lines. And so we find some Evangelicals condemning Catholics because they think we worship Mary and the Saints, and some agnostics condemning Christianity as a whole because they think we hate homosexuals. While I’d prefer that no one hate me at all, I figure if you’re going to hate me, then do so for something I’ve actually done or believe.
There is a rather stunning amount of ignorance about religion in general - and Christianity in particular - these days and in agreement with the Cardinal here, I attribute this lack of knowledge not to a lack of desire for religion, but to the excising of religion from the public square. We really are encouraged to keep it to ourselves; a sense that to proclaim one’s faith is, at best, rather rude and, at worst, a direct threat to those who believe differently. And this, I believe, brings up the debate about just what we mean by “separation of Church and State”.
In my view, the separation is a rather one-way street - the State may not interfere with the Church. It is the Believer and his Church who are protected from the State, not the State protected from being influenced by the Believer and his Church. To me the logic of this is inescapable - the State is the creature of the people, and thus cannot in propriety do anything athwart the people save in cases of the most pressing needs of public safety and liberty. I can, using my beliefs, attempt to convince the State, via constitutionally prescribed means, to adhere to my beliefs…but the State may not prescribe my beliefs. The reason we don’t have a State-sponsored religion is not because religion is baleful to public order and liberty, but because the State cannot compel belief. And the State is not the people acting in the public square - the State is a very narrowly defined political entity which is curtailed in its actions by various constitutional rules (”Congress shall make no law”, eg). If I, with my fellow citizens, decide to open a high school graduation ceremony with a prayer, that is not the State compelling belief, but the exercise of belief in the public square.
We are either free to bring all our beliefs to the public square and seek to have them enshrined in law and custom, or we are not free - separation of Church and State is the protection of the people - and their Church - from the State.
What do you think?
Entry Filed under: Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
66 Comments Add your own
1. js | May 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
i wonder what there is about “no law” they can not figure out…its appears that making laws against prayers in schools violated the constitution…
2. Jeremiah | May 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I agree completely, Mark.
I guess though, one could probably write a great deal more on the subject at hand, which deals a great more with why we are seeing our freedoms as Christians being restricted more and more by the State - namely, being that the ACLU and other non-believing anti-Christian organizations that seek to banish Christianity from the public square.
But you make the point that is crucial for the Christian defense - which is, The first amendment protects us from the dictates of the State to compel us either way to correspond under their diction that no said religion be ruled by State. For what can we gain by say - State run Atheism, Buddism, Islamicism even Christianity.
Aside from this, the Free Exercise Clause was meant for just that - to keep the State from interfering in religious matters of the laws concerning each state. But what had become of it was that it became a vehicle for federal judges’ through the due process Fourteenth Amendment Clause. If we go all the way back to the 1940 case of Cantwell v. Connecticut we find that the Courts’ turned it completely and utterly upside down. For the aforesaid purposes. Who were they? KKK members. That figures!
Unfortunately, the Courts’ continued to stray further and further from the Constitutional standing of the First Amendment, giving Judges more power to restrain the majority under their own ideologies, and this is not only true for Church and State affairs, but for every facet of laws in the United States. In this, modern “constitutional law” has little or nothing to do with the Constitution, because they are basing their decision on behalf of their own opinions and ideologies and making laws that the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment would have wholely and utterly rejected.
Despite all this, at the Founding of our Nation, each States religion was wholely and emphatically Christian…and it was not established by the State by force, but by the people, and therefore, their laws rested upon and were a part of each States’ Constitution and Bill of Rights as was attested by the words of the Founders at their respective Conventions in each of their States.
Christianity was the religion of the people!!! To this account, the civil rights of none were abridged, thus, Christianity afforded peace and prosperity to rule the day!!!
At this point, beings that the Court or State is in control, we need to have a serious thinking on the lines of a complete and renewed strength of the Constitution through reform, giving more power back to the people, and less and less power to the State, and amending the Constitution to take our freedoms back from the State and in the hands of the people where they belong and adding to the Constitution to that effect.
3. Eric T | May 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I think as a country, people need to have freedom of religion. And be able to raise their children in the traditions and customs of their religion.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.”
Our Country’s Founders served to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Our norms, values, and holidays. Are from Christian churches, Christianity is the majority of the population of this country. The norms must preserved and continue. It is Our country’s culture and heritage.
To welcome all religions is the goal. but not to make one official religion, Like the Church of England. The founders did not want an official church, that was written to increase the freedom and prevent one church from being an official part of government.
Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”
4. FmrMarine | May 11th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
It means to keep the govt’s hand OUT of religion.
Our communist/marxist liberal judges have hijacked the constitution and bastardized it completely.
5. Jeremiah | May 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
It means to keep the govt’s hand OUT of religion.
Absolutely!
Our communist/marxist liberal judges have hijacked the constitution and bastardized it completely.
A resounding Amen!! To that!!
They are evil judges! Judges that don’t care about this country, Judges that don’t care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights!!
Judges that are destroying America!!!!!!
We must stop them!!!!
6. Freedom1 | May 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Psalm 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”
Amen! God Bless America!
7. Mafongoo | May 11th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
What do I think?
I think you need a mental health observation. There is something wrong with you.
Honest. Take my advice, before too much longer, get some help.
I feel for your family.
8. winnowhead | May 11th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
It’s funny that you find it so offensive that people misconstrue Christians’ beliefs, but you then go forward to misconstrue what a secular state means.
Of course you can petition your government, and work to pass laws and appoint judges that are in tune with your beliefs - as long as they don’t step on others’ constitutional rights in the process. The line that is drawn has nothing to do with “values,” it has to do with sponsorship of a belief system.
As you stated here, “… given that at least 70% of Americans are Christian of some sort, I see no problem with the kiddies starting the day here with a Christian prayer…moreso in those areas which are closer to 90 or 95% Christian.”
This is the issue. You seem to want to force your religion on the minority. This is precisely what the constitution protects against. And, for some reason you simply cannot grasp, religious freedom is served by preventing this kind of state sponsorship of religion. Perhaps if you’re in the majority in your school district, your personal religion isn’t served, but religious freedom itself most certainly is.
9. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 12:12 am
winnow,
Our disagreement is actually what constitutes State sponsorship - being a conservative, I take the conservative view of it and actually go with what words mean. “State sponsorship” means that the State sponsors a particular religious belief and compells it upon those citizens who wish to be full participants in the public square. To have a prayer said in your presence at a high school graduation - for instance - does not compell you to believe it, and as long as we don’t require a religious test for office, your rights - as the presumptive non-religious minority - are protected.
What you want is a right not to have the beliefs of at least 70% of your fellow citizens expressed in your sight or hearing. That is an absurd definition of minority rights.
10. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 12:23 am
What you want is a right not to have the beliefs of at least 70% of your fellow citizens expressed in your sight or hearing. That is an absurd definition of minority rights.–Mark Noonan.
Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!!
Yes, it’s absurd and maddening…
Winnow, as does his liberal buddies, wants to take the beliefs of a hand full percentage wise, and use one decision ruled in his favor to bar and chain the entire country under the shackles of Liberalism which in turn will lead to tyranny and oppression, and then chaos.
11. winnowhead | May 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
First off, acknowledge that by “public square” you mean government sponsored events, not generally something “in public.” Then:
1) A prayer at such an event - ostensibly serving the entire population - is funded with tax dollars, clearly constituting sponsorship of religion.
2) I most certainly AM NOT arguing for not being exposed to religious beliefs “in public.” Again, you misconstrue your “enemy.” (Jeremiah, as usual, makes the word misconstrue woefully inadequate.) Make your beliefs known in public, on public property, to your heart’s content. Don’t expect government funding to sponsor it for you.
What is curious is that the only examples you can possibly give of the evils of church/state separation are symbolic. Prayer in school, ten commandments in a court house. Examples which don’t have anything other than symbolic importance to some, but is exclusionary to others.
12. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 1:21 am
winnow,
Well, that would make your objections even more absurd - you’re worried about the worst sort of PC, multi-culti claptrap, how “exclusionary” something might be. I’m dealing with real human rights here and the real constitutional order…not someone’s worry that someone else might be offended. You bring up visions of someone dragging you, kicking and screaming, to the baptismal fount, when your real worry is that someone might feel left out if a Christian prayer is offered in the public square.
You don’t have a right to not feel “left out” - rights are individual, not group…and if the group doesn’t want you - or you don’t want them - then there is no right being violated. You can’t compell people to take you in, no more than you can compell a bridge club to kick out a member because you, personally, don’t think that person should be in the group.
When confronted with a group which believes differently from you there are two choices - to join in, or to stay out. The group has two choice - to let you in, or keep you out. As long as you’re not compelled to subscribe to the group’s beliefs, your rights are protected - and as long as the group is not compelled to accept you as a member, the rights of the members of the group are also protected. You should have no problem with having people you disagree with saying something on public property - in fact, for you to believe otherwise would make you, by definition, an anti-democrat. Outside the rather narrow restictions of free speech (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater; you can’t incite people to violence; you can’t say or do that which would cause grave offense to the local public - ie, holding a KKK rally in front of the local NAACP chapter, holding a nudist demonstration in front of a Christian church - good manners forbids such things and, at any rate, such things can be construed as a generalised incitement to violence), anything may be said by anyone in the public square, provided good order is maintained.
We are all part of the body politic, winnow - you can’t say this or that group is forbidden from saying this or that thing just because this or that thing, said by this or that group, offends or even may offend someone else. If you wish to restrict what is to be said, you must demonstrate that it threatens public safety, the general liberty or is just outside of good order (in other words, you can object to me holding a prayer meeting at 8am on the freeway…I’d be making a nuisance of myself, and violating the rights of others, as well as risking public safety if I were to do such a thing … but you can’t forbid me, as a member of the public, from saying a prayer when such prayer is in no way a threat to the safety and liberty of others…so, if I want - as an official of the public school system - to offer a prayer in public, then its ok…if the local populace is really outraged by it, they’ll see to it that I’m prevented from doing it again…but its no office of yours, nor of the federal courts, nor of the regulatory agencies, to say if I shall or shall not say such a thing.
13. winnowhead | May 12th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Again, you misconstrue what I said. You talk about “groups” and quite carefully not government sponsorship of said groups.
And you hitch on the word “exclusionary” when, please re-read what I actually said, I was making a point about how these issues are purely symbolic and not consequential. When Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor bemoans the lack of Catholicism in British society it is not something to be remedied by placing the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To fixate on such symbolic and inconsequential things is to simply play into the basest version of GOP identity politics. Which, perhaps, you are quite gung-ho about.
14. congressive | May 12th, 2008 at 4:11 am
proclaiming their faith translates to stating their absolute disregard of reason and logic in order to embrace the delusions of madmen high on acacia bark.
Gimme that old tyme religion!
15. extramedium | May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 am
“There is a rather stunning amount of ignorance about religion in general - and Christianity in particular…”
Agreed, and here’s what I think - we should increase the amount of time devoted to studying religion in public schools. Just as it is generally required that students study Algebra or American History, we should devote a school year or more to the study of religion. So many children nowadays are not brought up going to church or Sunday school (I believe about 55% attend weekly on a national basis), that there is a significant and growing gap in knowledge as it relates to religious beliefs.
I’ll suggest two basic courses:
Religion in America: This would have an emphasis on Christianity, but also cover some of the other faiths in American today. Children should understand the basic stories of the Bible, the history of religion in America and the differences between the various religions in America.
Worldwide Religion: Children would understand in reasonable depth all of the major world religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese traditional, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism and so on. Some time would be given to the 3rd largest belief set - secular/agnostic/atheist - as well as broader fundamentals of monotheism, deism, polytheism, paganism and mythology.
Each class would study the history and facts of the the various faiths, but of course would not promote any particular belief. No belief would be put forth as “truth”.
As the country and the world become closer and closer to us with the continue advances of transportation and communication, it’s simply inexcusable that our young people are ignorant in terms of the beliefs of our fellow man. This small investment in education could bring the sort of mutual understanding that could prevent future conflicts among Americans and even global wars.
16. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | May 12th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Jeremiah-
Does it burn you up or shock you to know that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams believed that Jesus was just a man and not the “son of God”? That also they believed the immaculate conception was just the creation of the church.
So much for those “good” christian founding fathers huh?
17. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 12th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Since I am not American, nor am I a Christian I can only offer my opinion as one who had read law and prides himself of a singular understanding of Justice and equity as laid forth by the Founding Fathers. Now let’s start with an actual reading of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In an effort to prohibit the injustices of the British Crown and the Church of England the Founding Fathers sought to allow religious worship in the church of one’s choice not in a church “established” by any of the several states or even by the United States. Had this not been incorporated in the Constitution the Methodists could have established themselves in Virginia and the Catholics in Massachusetts setting the new nation up for religious warfare in the coming decades. The amendment was written specifically to maintain the freedom of the people to pursue their religious beliefs but in modern times it has been misconstrued by those that see it as an open charge to proselytize in the public square. In a nation admittedly 78% Christian I cannot understand why there is such a need to push the religion and not the faith more into the rulemaking bodies of daily life. Is the number of cathedrals, churches and temples not enough that the dominance of the Christian religion in every aspect of America life is the only outcome acceptable?
If a man is a public servant and not a Christian then requiring that his children pray a Christian prayer in a publicly funded school is a clear violation of his 1st amendment rights. The same applies to him while he presides over a city council meeting be he a Muslim a Jew or a Zoroastrian. His belief matters not. What matters is the public sphere is the one place that organized religion must not go if a democracy is to survive because with theocracy comes the diminution of civil right all the time not just some time. Many of you have said it yourselves in the litany of things that would not be allow if “only America would live by the law of the Bible and adhere to the values of Christianity.” Too much would be taken from the free country to ever call it free. If an aspect of life as it is now were not represented in the Bible then it could be struck down. Imagine the chaos that would ensue in the courts if divorce were suddenly outlawed by a well intending Congress and this law upheld by a federal judiciary. Imagine the raw loss of productivity in the American economy based solely on the depression of people trapped in loveless, abusive and painful relationships.
These are not mere poltergeists of jurisprudence we discuss here. What is being offered by Mr. Noonan is worthy of debates as held by Douglas and Lincoln or the fiery repartee between Darrow and Bryan. There are few issues culturally in America at this time that is more sine qua non to the success or failure of the United States of America as a republic, a democracy or a going concern. With religion in the public sphere in America will come corruption so great it will dwarf the graft and abuse currently played out daily in the halls and offices of the US Capitol. While Faith and organized religion are to be respected and encouraged they are also to have their firm place and that place is outside the infinitely high red brick wall that separates those institutions of salvation from the salvation of Free men and that salvation is a representative democracy unsullied by the constrictions of the Bible or any other religious book being used as the basis for the rules of mankind in modern times.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
18. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
9. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 12:12 am
So then anything that the public supports with a seventy percent ratio should be supported with the full weight of the law if it is currently legal?
This being the case then the 72% of men in America between the ages of 18 and 34 who view Internet adult movies and images have a bone to pick with conservatives who want to rid the World Wide Web of pornography.
12. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 1:21 am
You are right in the public square as you define it the agora, in the open where you can get a permit to do as you will under the law there is no restriction on free speech. However, in the public sphere where laws are made and cases are tried for the benefit of the republic and her citizens and in the paid for by taxes of all educational spaces such free speech is limited for the purposes to the sanctity of democracy being protected from the majority religion in America.
15. extramedium | May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Thank you for that clear headed and reasonable course of education.
19. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Cavalor,
Nonsense - there is no need to “protect” the State from religion, and the Constitution makes no provision for such. The people make the government - and the people are largely religious. To say that their government cannot reflect their core beliefs is absurd - and to say that their core beliefs, if expressed on public property, are a violation of someone’s rights is a foolish position to take.
You’re working from the nonsensical position that the constitution was framed and adopoted by agnostics and atheists and that American thought is based upon agnostic and atheistic views.
20. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Does it burn you up or shock you to know that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams believed that Jesus was just a man and not the “son of God”?
Nietsche -is- Pietsche,
It doesn’t schock me in the least, but it sure burns me up…I get hot whenever a bunch of lies…just pure lies. You accuse them of blasphemy where there is none. You bigot!!!
Therefore, I must pray….
Dear Lord, we pray now that you wold strike fear and trembling into the hearts of those who hate Your One and Only Son Jesus Christ. For you loved them enough to send Him to take on the sin of the whole world to die a horrible death to save them from their aweful sins, and that they would not only fear you, but that they would make an effort to serve you. For only You be praised Forever and Ever. Amen!
21. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
extramedium | May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Extramedium,
I’ll suggest the following…
‘We make a mistake when we agree that there is rational and moral common ground with atheists. No such common ground exists except within the circle of a Christian worldview.’
Generation upon generation of shed blood and tears have proven this fact. Which born to us the freedom that we now enjoy here in America.
22. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
19. Mark Noonan | May 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Mr Noonan there is a saying in my land that often times you need an astronomer to find a mole because your dermatologist may be looking too hard.
This works in reverse as well. The manner of phrasing of the 1st amendment keeps the State from imposing religion on the people as well as keeping religion from imposing its will on the State. Men of Faith such as the Founding fathers understood the inherent dangers of allowing a state sanctioned majority religion to operate the government and dictate the actions of people within government institutions and realms that are financed by tax dollars of the people. It is those areas not merely on public property where any intrusion by organized religion for the purpose of gaining a political foothold must be resisted by all Free Men of Good Conscience especially by those of Faith.
The prima facie danger is that today the religion of power might be yours but tomorrow another might be in favor in a court, tax office or the DMV. This clearly has nothing to do with parks street corners or anywhere else where the free speech of citizens is encouraged religious or otherwise. But the desire to make Christianity the de facto religion of government is exactly why these brilliant men constructed this wall that can be seen by everyone but those who do not wish for it to exist.
23. js | May 12th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
you strain mightily to force meaning where there is none CEE….and then fall on your face by trying to make your idea’s fit Marks words…
certainly, your craftiness is about all we can award you for…and the award is not so much one to brag about…because being labled a gross manipulator really does not sing so loud….
24. js | May 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
show us then, how the 1st amendment prohibits the practice of religion by the people, and requires that they do not hold religious values when they take political office….cmon…exactly where is it…ive spend decades on this…so make sure you know what you are talking about…because i do…
25. extramedium | May 12th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Jeremiah,
Thank you for that contribution. Whomever writes the textbook should include your view on atheists in the section dealing with Evangelical Christian beliefs.
26. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Cavalor EED, @ May 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I might could agree with you if your statements had some basis in fact, however, since they are based primarily from your propaganization of all the intent and purposes of our Founding Fathers, it would be a grave mistake and by all rights be considered an oxymoron for me to do so.
In any event, the Founders of America, as Christians fled England for the explicit purpose of escaping persecution by those of Atheistical and Paganistic belief systems. Their goal, however, when reaching American shores was to create theocracy within a short time-line afterwards. In order to understand this, we have to look at some of the laws that were ratified the Courts clarified that all profaneness, and denying the One true God and Father of our Religion Jesus Christ (Which would be consdiered rightly - Blasphemy), would be punished. Sodomy laws were enacted, in which all perpetrators who were caught were at times either burned at the stake, or their noses bored out.
All the laws that were established were approved and sanctioned by the people for the expressed purpose of maintaining peace and order within their respective society, and therefore, it afforded peace and protection to those who would be otherwise defenseless under a lawless society. And of course, the punishment for murder was always ordered death by way of hanging.
Even leading up to the Civil War they always relied solely upon the Creator of the Heaven and Universe to provide for their Victory in times of rebellion which led to the defiance of laws that were set in place by Christians and on principles theretofor.
These are just simple truths that every society had endured from the beginning of time - that Christianity which complies with the belief in God’s One and Only Son Jesus Christ had the ultimate victory and that any outside forces (unlawful, un-America, un-Christian, Immoral etc, etc,) seeking to overthrow that bond of unity had to be resisted.
27. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Extramedium,
No a textbook. Just a simple compilation of centuries worth of truth backed by the Christian faith.
Really nothing to explain. That says it all.
28. extramedium | May 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Jeremiah,
As you know, we can’t teach Christian beliefs as “truth” in public schools, as that would be tantamount to the state promoting a particular faith. I still think it would be valuable for all students to learn the fundamentals of all the major religions in public school. What do you think about that?
29. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Extramedium,
It would be a greatly welcomed change to have Christianity brought back to original free standing to be professed that the first amendment affords it.
As you may know, all other beliefs are allowed their positions to freely speak as they choose. Being perpetuated in various forms, from Science class with “evolution” to the distortion of history, to the distortion of the Constitution to fit their anti-Christian anti-moral views.
The only rights that are being abridged at this point in time are those of our Christian heritage.
So yes, I would be most welcome to restore America back to Her original form.
30. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
24. js | May 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
it does not and cannot if it expects America to be a free republic. In that light it also cannot choose a federal or state religion and cannot elevate Chrsitianity above all the others by making people pray at events that deal with government or are provided by federal or state or even local tax dollars unless these matter have been voted upon. It is not anti religion at all it is anti-religion being given status above any other belief by government. this is very simple.
31. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
26. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
While vehement in your fervor to defend your position you are flawed in your facts, my friend. Tobias Matthew, Archbishop of York was solely responsible for the siege of the Puritans and the efforts to get them to conform to the rules of the Church of England. Their leadership took flight to New England where they could practice their religion as they wished. The Church acting as the government as established to persecute a sect of people who do not worship as they do. And even though the Puritan Pilgrims were a radical element their influence waned as other groups arrived in the New World and as such few Puritans as it were can be found in the United States as fundamentalists and Southern baptists are mere pale reflections of the Puritan ethos.
There is little evidence to support your claim that Atheists or Pagans drove out the Pilgrims and forced them to take to boats for the New World. And I must remind you that while there was many a reformed protestand in America in 1776 and 1783 when the nation was founded and recognized you must admit by then the leaders were being guided by their own perceptions of their spiritual higher power not by the one reigning as monarch and co equal to the Church of England.
32. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Cavalor,
You may need to brush up a bit there - Henry VIII along with a few other Seperatists wanted to break away from the Roman Church but his wife didn’t - at the time it was considered against the monarchy. Consequently, thousands of Protestants were deemed “heretics” and burned at the stake. Fortunately a few escaped and made their way to Holland, but did not like their system of Secular living, and thus, they moved again to America where they were afforded the peace and prosperity that they knew they attained through the God of Creation.
France is well known for their bloody and savage atheistical tyranny against Christians, and the Colonies wanted to escape war with them if at all possible, but had to resist their advances to take tyrannical control ruling their Christian brothers and sisters in oppression.
Atheism has now crept in on American soil, and it has taken control of nearly 2/3s of all of England. As England slowly but surely declines into the dust pit of history, so it will be if Americans do not wake up soon and revive our country and awaken each of them to recapture that awesome truth which is held in the declaration of Independence…
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are Created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Our God and Father Jesus Christ is who he was referring to) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.’
If not? Then all is lost!!
33. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 13th, 2008 at 6:29 am
32. Jeremiah | May 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I am truly sorry my friend but you hallucinate to serve your cause. Where the Founding Fathers write the words Creator and created that is what they mean, that the Divine Spirit of the Universe that set all into existence and motion granted all sentinet species with certain Equality in His Eyes and with inalienable right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Nowhere are the people or personages that support your wish for your religion to govern all the affairs of Terra exist there. You only wish to have Christendom be a world power not to grant a protector to those blessed Rights Inalienable but to destroy all the other Faiths of the World and replace them with your weepy vision of what Terra “should be lest she be damned.” If this is not Religious Fascism writ large I do not know of which I speak.
You can generally walk in the day on Terra and throw a rock hit a zealot without any effort but I never thought that the revisionist hisotrian religious zealots would take such deep root in America. There is just so much quality education in the US that I truly missed my mark in thinking that men and women educated in colleges would be able to drown out this manner of nonsense with Reason. Those Puritans I speak of that landed in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1620 were Englishmen who were fleeing oppression from the Church of England. The Dutch came four years later with settlements in the Hudson River Valley for economic reasons and were far more religiously tolerant than any of those that settled to the north. And as for catholic france in that time they were known for no such thing as “atheistical tyranny.” Ser you “see phantomes where there only bee shadowes.”
34. bad card credit history b&hellip | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
credit card debt consolidation service
Preview card consolidate credit loan student application bank card credit orchard advance cash settlement advance advance america cash american express black credit card
35. no fax payday loan missou&hellip | May 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
low interest payday loan
Dear ca in loan payday software best card credit interest rate credit card debt consolidation company credit card interest rate calculator credit card balance transfer rate
36. poker regeln de&hellip | May 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
online poker turnier
As far as jeux slots telecharger jeux de casino gratuites jugar seguro portales web casinos descargas portales web casino slot
37. casinos pagina internet&hellip | June 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
www online poker net
Esto es strip poker a telecharger apostar portales internet www online poker net juegos instantaneos portal internet free download games
38. poker en ligne sans mise&hellip | June 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 am
web baccarat
Respektvoll free christian ringtones poker en ligne sans mise cingular wireless ringtones poker regeln 5 strip poker pc spiel
39. double bonus video poker&hellip | June 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
juego casino portal web
In need of casino poker yahoo ringtones free nextel ringtones poker texano gamme net jeu
40. apuesta paginas internet&hellip | June 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
coupons bonus casino
Ofrecer cingular free from ringtones free poker site 7 card stud play free video poker karten spiele
41. gioco keno&hellip | June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
free blackjack game
Get started card games 7 card stud 7 card stud giochi video poker gambling online free blackjack game
42. promocion casino paginas &hellip | June 6th, 2008 at 3:23 am
realistische online spielbank
Su free casino slots internet poker site pc slots blackjack online spiele free casino game
43. casino tycoon&hellip | June 7th, 2008 at 3:51 am
play keno
Oficialmente poker tour gioco poker on line strip poker download play blackjack strip poker games
44. tornei poker online&hellip | June 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
party poker bonus
A online gewinnspiele live poker play free 7 card stud home poker game download casino tropez
45. juego gratis la ruleta&hellip | June 10th, 2008 at 1:26 am
c139 free motorola ringtones
Adesso www casino vacances jeu poker gratuitement video slots in black jack casino pc
46. game blackjack&hellip | June 11th, 2008 at 9:34 am
cellular phone ringtones
Mucho best casino bonus super slots casino tornei di poker gratis online poker tour free online 7 card stud
47. casino italiani on line&hellip | June 12th, 2008 at 6:19 am
jeu keno en ligne gratuites
Cesoir poker games gambling portals free virgin mobile ringtones poker torneos gratis casino italiani on line
48. internet casino&hellip | June 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
risposte eurobarre casino on net
Him le meilleur casino crazy frog listen ringtones casino download gratis jeu gratuit casino jugar gratis pagina web
49. play poker for fun&hellip | June 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
location jeux casino
Pourtant black jack poker game download gagner au casino en ligne giochi 7 card stud inlinea swiss casino bonus code
50. poker 50 gratis&hellip | June 15th, 2008 at 3:35 am
ganar dinero en el casino
Précédemment live poker poker sur net poker argent virtuel make your own ringtones video poker downloads
51. video poker on line&hellip | June 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
online poker review
It is understood gioco poker in italiano bajar juego poker come giocare a poker 7 card stud poker rules casino virtual portal
52. jouer au poker&hellip | June 16th, 2008 at 3:23 am
casino games download
Create cartas de poker ganar dinero portales jugar card stud online poker fr mac poker online in italiano
53. online kasino slots&hellip | June 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
gratis poker games
Para empezar poker superstars 2 spielen free poker online juegos de poker para descargar logiciel poker casino club net
54. casino on net com&hellip | June 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
online poker no download
Definitiva free phone ringtones free cingular wireless ringtones poker con bonus regles poker texas hold poker games gratis
55. free cingular mp3 rington&hellip | June 20th, 2008 at 3:57 am
set de poker
Nehemn casino internacional paginas web poker web juegos seguros pagina web poquer com es mp3 ringtones
56. free ringtones maker&hellip | June 21st, 2008 at 6:29 am
lg ringtones
One baccarat download online baccarat ringtones for cellular one phone download free ringtones verizon black jack
57. double bonus video poker&hellip | June 24th, 2008 at 5:35 am
free real ringtones for verizon
Puoi poker de dados metro pcs ringtones how to play poker casino on net free blackjack download
58. unlimited movie downloads&hellip | June 27th, 2008 at 4:05 am
unlimited movie downloads
It seems that we share similar thoughts.
59. cell phone ringtones spri&hellip | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
motorola ringtones
Fare apostar internet how to play poker free motorola tracfone ringtones motorola ringtones aprende jugar poker
60. gioco poker da scaricare &hellip | July 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
no deposit bonus poker
Donde casinos internacionales internet juegos poker shareware game on line poker mejor juego de poker strategia poker
61. juego instantaneo&hellip | July 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
poker pagina web
Giocare descarga gratis juegos poker poker tournament 2007 gioco streep poker aprende a jugar poker poker texana online
62. celcom caller ringtones&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am
music real ringtones ringtones
Finden download free ringtones sprint 50 cent ringtones omaha poker regeln poker stars net 7 card stud poker rules
63. informatica poker&hellip | July 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
poker per pc gratis
Offer texas hold em odds juego poker online gratis live online poker www gratis poker online poker gewinne
64. casino italiani bonus&hellip | July 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
casino games pro
En realidad i migliori casino online gioco gratuito juegos portales casino online certificati stud poker
65. online spielkasino&hellip | July 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
poquer online gratis
Alli 7 card stud gratis strp poker poker portal giochi poker da scaricare paradise poker
66. atlantic city&hellip | July 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
sites de poker en ligne
Di spielen sie kostenlos kasinospiele online jeu de poker sans argent club player casino sites de poker en ligne faires spiel
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed