ACLU and "separation of church & state"

[Nuc]

OCA, they, meaning Liberals and Athiests don't understand that every action we do has consequences on others, although some more than others.........

Buddhism is atheistic, yet the law of karma is exactly that-"every action we do has consequences on others." I think you are overgeneralizing.

 

[Annie]

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

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bonnie again.

 

[FredVonFlash]

No. Conservatives believe in religious freedom.

Define religious freedom for me.

FVF

 

[FredVonFlash]

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.

What is a habib and what are libs censoring?

FVF

 

[Annie]

What is a habib and what are libs censoring?

FVF

Look it up, then get back with me.

 

[FredVonFlash]

Look it up, then get back with me.

Does a man have a God given right to financially support religion according to the dictates of his consciences?

 

[Annie]

Does a man have a God given right to financially support religion according to the dictates of his consciences?

Look it up, then get back with me.

 

[FredVonFlash]

It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

 

[Annie]

It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

You haven't said shi* here.

 

[dilloduck]

It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

Pemanency of ANY form of government has never been established. There has always been a shift in balance between church and state. The great "experiment" will continue as long as man does. Where's the problem?

 

[FredVonFlash]

How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law.

 

[dilloduck]

How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law.

And vice versa.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You haven't said shi* here.

No kidding. What a fluffmeister.

 

[FredVonFlash]

In at least two previous rulings America was declared to be a Christian nation, a Christian people. These cases were the Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. in 1892 and the U.S. v. Macintosh in 1931.

We all know it is a Christian Nation. That is why we have a separation between the things that are to be rendered to God and the authority of the government.

The Savior ordained a Separation of Church and State in Matthew 22:21.

FVF

 

[Nuc]

We all know it is a Christian Nation. That is why we have a separation between the things that are to be rendered to God and the authority of the government.

The Savior ordained a Separation of Church and State in Matthew 22:21.

FVF

And......????

What's the relevance?

Are you saying America should be a theocracy? The opposite? You're not being too clear here.

 

[007]

We all know it is a Christian Nation. That is why we have a separation between the things that are to be rendered to God and the authority of the government.

The Savior ordained a Separation of Church and State in Matthew 22:21.

FVF

So... you believe America would have been better off from it's conception if the church had not played a part in it, namely Christianity?

 

[FredVonFlash]

So... you believe America would have been better off from it's conception if the church had not played a part in it, namely Christianity?

Please give some examples of what you believe was a part that Christianity played in the conception of American, so that I know exactly what you mean.

 

[Nuc]

Please give some examples of what you believe was a part that Christianity played in the conception of American, so that I know exactly what you mean.

For one thing the Founding Fathers were all Christians, or at least came from a Christian background.

 

[FredVonFlash]

For one thing the Founding Fathers were all Christians, or at least came from a Christian background.

Is that why they established a separation of church and state?

FVF

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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?

I think you need to go back and read that again, Fred.

Jefferson didn't say he was forbidden by the Constitution to even recommend a day of fasting and prayer, he said he could not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. I can see where prescribing prayer would be a violation of the Constitution as it would put the President of the U.S. in the same position as the King of England at the time, acting as the head of the church.