ACLU and "separation of church & state"

[ciplexian]

We already have freedom of religion in America. As it should be. We dont teach religion in schools but we dont teach morality either. Its up to parents to raise children, not schools. But not all parents are up to the task and so I wouldnt mind if there were religion and moral philosophy classes added to the curriculum. That would be a good thing. However it is unlikely to happen as under the current system administrators, school boards and teachers have no incentive to change anything.

 

[Gem]

we dont teach morality either

Are you kidding me? As a teacher I can tell you that this is patently false. The education system IS teaching morality. It has to, because parents are not doing it at home while simultaneously demaning that the schools "educate my kid!"

Its failing miserably of course, because the parents demand that the school is responsible for raising their children to be honest, decent, moral people...but the second the school does something they don't like they scream about schools teaching morality... but that doesn't mean it isn't being done.

 

[007]

We already have freedom of religion in America.

Is that right? Is that why dumbass company's like Jack in the Box are running commercials using the phrase "good holiday spirit" instead of "MERRY CHRISTMAS"?!

And the only reason all this has come to pass, is because of those mother fucking liberal zealot prick bastards, the aclu. They're as big of an ANTI-American group as have ever been. I'd rather see a parade of Nazi skin heads than the aclu.

 

[ciplexian]

Are you kidding me? As a teacher I can tell you that this is patently false. The education system IS teaching morality. It has to, because parents are not doing it at home while simultaneously demaning that the schools "educate my kid!"

Its failing miserably of course, because the parents demand that the school is responsible for raising their children to be honest, decent, moral people...but the second the school does something they don't like they scream about schools teaching morality... but that doesn't mean it isn't being done.

Ok, I may be mistaken. In my experience young children are taught how to behave, and they are taught some simple moral lessons when they are very young. However what goes on is nowhere near a substitute for the parents' ideal role of shaping the character of the child.

Pale Rider- a private company may do what they wish. Who cares what Jack in the Box puts on its cards? I am sure you can get a Merry Christmas card. The ACLU can't force them to censor their products either.

 

[007]

Pale Rider- a private company may do what they wish. Who cares what Jack in the Box puts on its cards? I am sure you can get a Merry Christmas card. The ACLU can't force them to censor their products either.

It's OBVIOUS that Jack in the Box has CAVED to the P.C. crowd, and the P.C. crowd is the aclu crowd. Anything ANTI religon.

If someone said "good holiday spirit" to me, I'd ask them, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... CHRISTMAS?" "THEN WHY DON'T YOU SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS??!!"

 

[MissileMan]

Why don't you quote me there slick where I said a state sponsored religion, just FYI theocracy does not mean state sponsored religion.

Typical liberalism though, read what you want to read and not what was wrote, your wrong on gay marriage and more than likely wrong on this issue.

A theocracy is a state run by religion...and you are the one who said,

Christian principles not Jewish, not Muslim and not Buddhist etc. etc.

so I am making the very short leap that your theocracy would be run by the Christian religion.

Let me also set you straight on something else. Just because someone disagrees with YOU, that does not mean that they are a liberal. Just because someone is an atheist, that does not mean they are a liberal. Just because someone thinks that gays ought to be allowed civil unions, that does not mean they are a liberal. I am a conservative, just one who is not religously zealous.

And if you would take the time to actually read what I've written instead of jumping to conclusions, you could make that distinction all by yourself.

 

[OCA]

A theocracy is a state run by religion...and you are the one who said, so I am making the very short leap that your theocracy would be run by the Christian religion.

Let me also set you straight on something else. Just because someone disagrees with YOU, that does not mean that they are a liberal. Just because someone is an atheist, that does not mean they are a liberal. Just because someone thinks that gays ought to be allowed civil unions, that does not mean they are a liberal. I am a conservative, just one who is not religously zealous.

And if you would take the time to actually read what I've written instead of jumping to conclusions, you could make that distinction all by yourself.

I have read your stuff and you are about as conservative as Michael Kinsley, a moderate? Maybe, but a conservative definitely not.

A theocracy espouses religious convictions and ideals and yes since 80-90% of the country is of one Christian denomination or other then it would be wise to have those ideals along Christian lines. Please explain to me though how if endorsing 1 religion over another or not even just that, mentioning 1 religion over another, would be bad for the country and would oppress said tiny minority who are not Christian. Don't jump to conclusions and say "OCA wants to ban all religions except Christianity, i'm saying we should move to a government that is intertwined with religion like Greece, they don't make it law but just espouse some of the ideals that the religion(Greek Orthodox) stands for, seems to work too, not even 1/10 of the social problems we have here.

 

[MissileMan]

I have read your stuff and you are about as conservative as Michael Kinsley, a moderate? Maybe, but a conservative definitely not.

A theocracy espouses religious convictions and ideals and yes since 80-90% of the country is of one Christian denomination or other then it would be wise to have those ideals along Christian lines. Please explain to me though how if endorsing 1 religion over another or not even just that, mentioning 1 religion over another, would be bad for the country and would oppress said tiny minority who are not Christian. Don't jump to conclusions and say "OCA wants to ban all religions except Christianity, i'm saying we should move to a government that is intertwined with religion like Greece, they don't make it law but just espouse some of the ideals that the religion(Greek Orthodox) stands for, seems to work too, not even 1/10 of the social problems we have here.

Since the basis of our constitution is the Christian bible, what else is it that you are proposing? Are you suggesting that everyone be forced to learn Christianity at school? Are you suggesting that everyone have to attend a Christian church? Or perhaps you are suggesting enacting more laws that will force Christian morals on everyone, whether they are Christian or not. We could start by enacting the "Thou shall hold the sabbath holy" law. We'll just shut the whole country down on Sundays...just for you.

I said it in another thread, but it bears repeating here. The moral authority of any religion extends only to it's members.

I'd tell ya where to stuff your theocracy but it would take an act of divine intervention to get your head out of the way. And since there's no god...

 

[Bonnie]

Well.... at one time, a candidate who was caught sleeping with another woman other than his wife (remember Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado?) during a campaign was finished with the voters. Now.... it's SO WHAT? As if cheating on your wife is a separate issue from keeping your vows to serve the people and defend the constitution. If you have no compunction about breaking your marriage vows, I can't see how you'd have much compunction about breaking your promise to defend the Constitution, either!

Exactly!! If a man can't be true to his own wife, the one person in this world that is closest to him, then how on earth can he really have any integrity with his oath of office? Im stymied by how many people think the two can be seperated.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Other points of view as in... it is OK to cheat on your spouse (hey there a lot of people in open marriages...), it is OK to lie under oath as long as it's about sex (couldn't resist that one!)?

OK, so you're an atheist, suppose. You can't tolerate other people praying in public?

Values and morals do require validation by something bigger than individuals. Organized religion does that. If everyone had their own set of values, then our society and our culture would die.

What is the definition of culture? According to Merriam Webster

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=culture

"the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs , social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation" Emphasis mine.

According to this definition, shared, common values are an INTEGRAL part of our culture! And without a shared set of beliefs, not only would our culture die out, but so would our nation! After all, if not everyone believed in a common good, e.g. fighting and perhaps dying for your country, our nation couldn't survive.

And I would further state that our morals and values didn't just pop up out of no where. In the very distant past, perhaps beyond recorded history, people saw the consequences of certain behaviors e.g. cheating, lying, adultery and codified a set of values and laws against them. Just because we don't know WHY we have those values doesn't mean that those values were arbitrarily created out of thin air!

Reinventing society (as well as messing around with the economy) is something like messing around with the environment. You just never know what the consequences are going to be. Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone! Human beings have their own ecology too...

If another's actions cause no harm to myself , themselves or others, it matters not to me what they do. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Your examples of lying, cheating, adultery, etc. are examples of actions which lead to the harm of the individuals involved, and thus cannot be condoned. Consequentialist ethics need no divine imprimateur...For the consequences of our actions, beneficient or maleficient, are the measure used to judge the moral/ethical status of those actions.
If the consequences to this life in this world aren't sufficient, I don't know what is.

 

[OCA]

Since the basis of our constitution is the Christian bible, what else is it that you are proposing? Are you suggesting that everyone be forced to learn Christianity at school? Are you suggesting that everyone have to attend a Christian church? Or perhaps you are suggesting enacting more laws that will force Christian morals on everyone, whether they are Christian or not. We could start by enacting the "Thou shall hold the sabbath holy" law. We'll just shut the whole country down on Sundays...just for you.

I said it in another thread, but it bears repeating here. The moral authority of any religion extends only to it's members.

I'd tell ya where to stuff your theocracy but it would take an act of divine intervention to get your head out of the way. And since there's no god...

Yep i'm proposing government to start leaning towards Christianity more in its rulings and general everyday workings. I'm still waiting for someone to argue that secularism and seperation has been successful, anybody?

Though Missile your comeback was pretty creative, this I can respect especially coming from an heathen atheist.

 

[Bonnie]

Yep i'm proposing government to start leaning towards Christianity more in its rulings and general everyday workings. I'm still waiting for someone to argue that secularism and seperation has been successful, anybody?

Though Missile your comeback was pretty creative, this I can respect especially coming from an heathen atheist.

OCA, they, meaning Liberals and Athiests don't understand that every action we do has consequences on others, although some more than others.........They don't understand how abortion itself demeans and degrades our society even if it's just the woman making that decision, they have no concept of the collective effects of sin on society as a whole. They all think hey what i do is no ones business, as long as Im not hurting anyone else. They choose to believe this because it gives them their out, or so called secular justification to do what ever they feel like it without ever wanting anyone to judge the actions.

When a spouse cheats on his or her spouse it doesn't just affect them, it affects their kids, their parents, their faimilies, their friends, their finances.............and on and on

 

[FredVonFlash]

The usage of the words "separation of church and state" in legal jurisprudence came from a 1947 court case instigated by (surprise, surprise) the ACLU.

What about Reynolds v. U. S. (1878)?

Fred Von Flash

 

[Annie]

What about Reynolds v. U. S. (1878)?

Fred Von Flash

To look at Reynolds, one must look at Jefferson:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Endnotes:

1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.

 

[FredVonFlash]

Dear Kathianne:

If Thomas Jefferson believed that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination then why in 1808 did he write to Reverend Samuel Miller and tell him that the Constitution forbid the President to even recommend a day of fasting & prayer?

To Rev. Samuel Miller

Washington, Jan. 23, 1808

Sir, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with.

I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government.

It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer.

That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion.

And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.

Fasting & prayer are religious exercises.

The enjoining them an act of discipline.

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.

Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.
​

FVF

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What you libs want is not a separation of church and state, but a separation of humanity and morality.

 

[insein]

What you libs want is not a separation of church and state, but a separation of humanity and morality.

Yes or rather elimination of church all together. Communism. The church is the state.

 

[FredVonFlash]

Liberals stand for the freedom to worship according to the dictates of conscience. Conservatives believe in the exercise of religion according to the advice of the government.

FVF

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Liberals stand for the freedom to worship according to the dictates of conscience. Conservatives believe in the exercise of religion according to the advice of the government.

FVF

No. Conservatives believe in religious freedom.

 

[Annie]

No. Conservatives believe in religious freedom.

Yes, for everyone. All should be able to discuss, display, and champion their beliefs. Fine for the cross, the star of david, the crescent, the pentagram, etc.

It's the libs, ala france trying to ban the habib, that is for censoring.