Here's How The Founding Fathers Ensured America Would Not Be A Christian Nation

[whitehall]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

[expat_panama]

The founders did not want doctrinal differences to wreak civic havoc of the kind then evident throughout Europe. That is why they left not only Jesus but indeed any deity out of the Constitution...

You might want to walk that back some. Re Article VII (from here):

"... in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

Sure, you might get away w/ changing the meme to "--well, the founding fathers only referred to 'our Lord' who was born 1,787 years before because that was what everyone did--", but then you're stuck explaining your way out of saying that.

 

[whitehall]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

We come full circle in the argument. A former KKK member appointed to the Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion. The intent was to punish Papists and through the years other (democrat) administrations expanded the concept to the point where the original intent of the F.F. to guarantee freedom of religion was reversed .

 

[Picaro]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

lol trying to pass off a 1947 ruling as having anything to do with original intent is stupid even for you mentally ill deviants, especially one that is obviously based on blatant falsehoods. We already know it didn't apply to the states, history is clear on that, so you'll just have go smoke some more meth, and try again.

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

lol trying to pass off a 1947 ruling as having anything to do with original intent is stupid even for you mentally ill deviants, especially one that is obviously based on blatant falsehoods. We already know it didn't apply to the states, history is clear on that, so you'll just have go smoke some more meth, and try again.

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating how little you understand constitutional law

 

[whitehall]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

lol trying to pass off a 1947 ruling as having anything to do with original intent is stupid even for you mentally ill deviants, especially one that is obviously based on blatant falsehoods. We already know it didn't apply to the states, history is clear on that, so you'll just have go smoke some more meth, and try again.

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

Do ignorant lefties really want to promote the argument that a Supreme Court decision had no effect on state or local government?
The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

 

[Picaro]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

lol trying to pass off a 1947 ruling as having anything to do with original intent is stupid even for you mentally ill deviants, especially one that is obviously based on blatant falsehoods. We already know it didn't apply to the states, history is clear on that, so you'll just have go smoke some more meth, and try again.

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

Do ignorant lefties really want to promote the argument that a Supreme Court decision had no effect on state or local government?
The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Apparently they do, but then they're nasty mentally ill bigots, so no reason to expect anything to do with reality from them.

 

[Picaro]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "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 & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

You can't say the separation of church and state "was founded" by Jefferson any more than you can create a different Constitution based on correspondence by any other Founding Father.

Actually you can, since the Supreme Court built upon Jefferson's remarks and codified it into case law.

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

lol trying to pass off a 1947 ruling as having anything to do with original intent is stupid even for you mentally ill deviants, especially one that is obviously based on blatant falsehoods. We already know it didn't apply to the states, history is clear on that, so you'll just have go smoke some more meth, and try again.

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating how little you understand constitutional law

You're too stupid to understand what I said, or you're too stupid to admit you don't have squat, or both. I'm voting for both.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Next this gimp will try to tell us 'the Founders' all wanted to legalize butt sex between faggots and 8 year old boys, because sex fetishes are civil rights.

No, that would be Lawrence v.Texas

 

[whitehall]

Before we get bogged down in (typical?) left wing juvenile name calling we need to establish the salient point that there is no concept of "separation of church and state" to be found in the Constitution. The question is why did former KKK member Justice Black decide to legislate from the bench based on a sentence found in a Jefferson letter?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do ignorant lefties really want to promote the argument that a Supreme Court decision had no effect on state or local government?

What!!?? No you have a reading comprehension problem. Of course a SCOTUS decision has an effect on state and local government!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Again you demonstrate your piss poor understanding of constitutional law, SCOTUS decision add to that body of law are carry as much weight as anything in the original document and the amendments

 

[whitehall]

The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Again you demonstrate your piss poor understanding of constitutional law, SCOTUS decision add to that body of law are carry as much weight as anything in the original document and the amendments

The "weight" of a supreme court decision is not in dispute. The same former KKK member S.C. Justice who wrote the majority opinion that created the fake concept of "separation of church and state" also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR for incarcerating American citizens without due process. Thank God democrats haven't expanded that concept (yet).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Again you demonstrate your piss poor understanding of constitutional law, SCOTUS decision add to that body of law are carry as much weight as anything in the original document and the amendments

The "weight" of a supreme court decision is not in dispute. The same former KKK member S.C. Justice who wrote the majority opinion that created the fake concept of "separation of church and state" also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR for incarcerating American citizens without due process. Thank God democrats haven't expanded that concept (yet).

And all of that has EXACTLY what to do with the question of whether or not anyone intended this to be a Christian nation? Basically, you are falling back on a 'poisoning the well" type of logical fallacy by trying to discredit Blacks opinion by throwing in this stuff about the KKK and FDR which is irrelevant . It is also a red herring fallacy intended to divert attention away from the actual issue.

 

[whitehall]

The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Again you demonstrate your piss poor understanding of constitutional law, SCOTUS decision add to that body of law are carry as much weight as anything in the original document and the amendments

The "weight" of a supreme court decision is not in dispute. The same former KKK member S.C. Justice who wrote the majority opinion that created the fake concept of "separation of church and state" also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR for incarcerating American citizens without due process. Thank God democrats haven't expanded that concept (yet).

And all of that has EXACTLY what to do with the question of whether or not anyone intended this to be a Christian nation? Basically, you are falling back on a 'poisoning the well" type of logical fallacy by trying to discredit Blacks opinion by throwing in this stuff about the KKK and FDR which is irrelevant . It is also a red herring fallacy intended to divert attention away from the actual issue.

The post never claimed that the FF intended America to be a Christian nation. The post claimed that the FF made sure that America would not be a Christian nation. Of course that is a lie and possibly the biggest lie. The FF guaranteed that Americans would have the freedom of religious worship but it would take about 180 years for unelected KKK bigots appointed by left wing radicals to ensure that the government would have the power to determine which religious beliefs would be protected and which beliefs would be subject to the whims of radical politics.

 

[SandSquid]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

The first amendment prohibits Congress from establishing or endorsing one religion over another

Did you read the second sentence or was it another victim of left wing suppression? What about the part where it says "the free expression thereof"? There is no concept of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. It was a freaking invention by a former KKK member to intimidate Papists from establishing Catholic schools. Through the years the KKK democrat party expanded the fake concept to the point that jack booted thugs smashed religious icons off courthouse walls in a chilling reminder of Stalinist Russians and Maoist Chinese eliminating every reference to religion from their socialist agenda.

Again, just because you continue to repeat a known debunked lie, doesn't make it any more true. "Separation of Church and State" was coined by THOMAS JEFFERSON. He was not a former KKK member.

No matter how many times you try and repeat that lie, it doesn't make it any more true, and when you find yourself needing to use debunked lies to support your case, it ends any truth you may be trying to bring up.

Then you go on Lie #2, blaming the Democratic KKK party as bringing it up first. Actually it was the Morrison Waite Supreme Court which first used Thomas Jefferson's quote as authoritative when talking about the interpretation of the 1st amendment... (though Madison as President had written along the same lines when he had veto'd bills about giving public land to churches with similar writings in 1811). Waite was nominated by Ulysses Grant, a REPUBLICAN to that office.

Eisenhower's nominees were the ones who used that quote to oppose school prayer.

It was Bush/Ford/Reagan appointees that decided the Ten Commandments were unconstitutional on public property in McCreary vs. the ACLU. How are they "democrat KKK guys"?

You can't actually believe the things you type can you? It's either completely ignorant, or your intentionally lying to try and rewrite actual history here.

So why... AGAIN do you try and lie here? Over and over and over and over and over? What does that get you? Are you saying you'd rather lie about something you wish was true rather than live in reality? That's not a healthy outlook on life.

 

[SandSquid]

The fake concept of "separation of church and state" that did not appear in the Constitution but was codified by a former KKK member was (is) the basis the left uses to override the intent of the F.F..

Again you demonstrate your piss poor understanding of constitutional law, SCOTUS decision add to that body of law are carry as much weight as anything in the original document and the amendments

The "weight" of a supreme court decision is not in dispute. The same former KKK member S.C. Justice who wrote the majority opinion that created the fake concept of "separation of church and state" also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR for incarcerating American citizens without due process. Thank God democrats haven't expanded that concept (yet).

And all of that has EXACTLY what to do with the question of whether or not anyone intended this to be a Christian nation? Basically, you are falling back on a 'poisoning the well" type of logical fallacy by trying to discredit Blacks opinion by throwing in this stuff about the KKK and FDR which is irrelevant . It is also a red herring fallacy intended to divert attention away from the actual issue.

It's especially odd since it isn't reality. Not only a red herring, but a red herring to defend a lie.

It was a Grant nominee (Republican) named Waite who with the Supreme Court first brought up Jefferson's "separation of Church and State" letter in a case, saying in the majority opinion that "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

If you are curious how strong of a KKK Democrat Waite was, well he founded the Ohio Republican Party.


But hey, when you can't use the truth, just lie and pretend it came from someone else instead.

A good reading would be Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. When wanting to interpret the 1st amendment as to what it meant, the actual beliefs of the father of the Bill of Rights is a good spot to begin.

 

[TrueTT]

Guess the OP is still upset the Republicans own Christmas, Easter, morals...lol





John 19:30 "It is finished"

The past, the present, the future


We will always be a Christian nation


.

...and yet the avatar you sport is that of a Democratic, Hindu Congresswoman and army vet serving this perennial “Christian nation”

But I guess the irony isn’t lost on you, you dolt.

PS: Please read up inn Tulsi’s love for pagan Hinduism hahahahah

 

[Picaro]

Again, just because you continue to repeat a known debunked lie, doesn't make it any more true. "Separation of Church and State" was coined by THOMAS JEFFERSON.

.

lol apparently repeating this bullshit will make it true. Left wing liars are too ridiculously uneducated for this forum.


Thomas Helwys - Wikipedia

Thomas Helwys (c. 1575 – c. 1616), an Englishman, was one of the joint founders, with John Smyth, of the General Baptist denomination.

In the early seventeenth century, Helwys was principal formulator of that distinctively Baptist request: that the church and the state be kept separate in matters of law, so that individuals might have a freedom of religious conscience. Thomas Helwys was an advocate of religious liberty at a time when to hold to such views could be dangerous. He died in prison as a consequence of the religious persecution of Protestant dissenters under King James I.