Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[M.D. Rawlings]

People can't express themselves religiously in public schools? I guess all those cross necklaces, Bibles, christian clothing people were wearing were just figments of my imagination.

I never heard or saw anyone in my 10 years of public schooling (other 3 years were catholic schooling) told to tone down their religious expression.

I'm not talking about the symbolic expressions of your limited imagination, but the ideological expressions that are traditionally thought of as being religious, which are officially suppressed as the ideological expressions of secular humanism are officially imposed.

Funny. Prior to "the religion-education decisions" of the Fifties and Sixties, the religious practices and tenants of Judeo-Christianity were imposed by the schools in many of the several states on non-religious, irreligious or other-religious persons. Since those decisions, the tenants of the irreligious and non-religious have been imposed on the religious.

Hmm. The Court didn't really resolve the matter in accordance with the demands of the First Amendment at all, did it?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow, what a crybaby! You are annoyed that people won't let you use your religious beliefs as an excuse to act like an obnoxious insensitive jerk. My heart bleeds.

What does "use your religious beliefs" mean?

Clueless.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If you reject the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State you must also reject the Constitutional doctrine of the individual right to own a handgun in self defense.

The problem is not whether or not there is or should be a separation of church and state. The problem is the understanding of that separation imposed on the body politic by the Court. It's nonsensical and tyrannical; unlike the understanding that the Second Amendment applies to the individual, the Court construed the First Amendment with regard to religious expression within public schools, for example, to not apply to the individual at all.

People can't express themselves religiously in public schools? I guess all those cross necklaces, Bibles, christian clothing people were wearing were just figments of my imagination.

I never heard or saw anyone in my 10 years of public schooling (other 3 years were catholic schooling) told to tone down their religious expression.

District 11 student says crosses banned at school | koaa.com | Colorado Springs | Pueblo |

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hig...ian-he-cant-say-how-god-had-changed-his-life/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-02-religious-dress-teachers_N.htm <---here is one for muslims just to show the violations of the first ammendment go against them too

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

LOL you guys are still here.

The constitution never called for a separation of church and state.

If i'm wrong post the line, from the constitution, that does this.

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

that doesn't say the church and state are to be separate. It says the state can not establish a state religion. This does not say there is a separation of church and state.

The full context "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."

See the part you left out in relation to religion "or prevent the free excercise therof"? By denying people, for example the ability to pray in public school as a govt policy, you are actually violating the first ammendment by preventing the free exercise thereof.


Again, find where the constitution says there is to be a separation of the church and state. All i see is that the govt can't say "protestant catholic" is the accepted state religion or "Islam sharia law" is the accepted state religion.

*sigh*

I'm on your side; I'm with you, but. . . .

There is a conceptual separation of church and state inherent to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, its body of thought. The Founders understood themselves to be implementing that separation of classical tradition in the terminology of the First Amendment. You're getting hung up on semantics and the phony rendition of that separation imposed by the Warren Court, which is not the construct of the Founders at all, but that of the collectivist democratic theory of Continental Europe.

Indeed, the construct of the Founders does not separate religious expression from the state in the sense that lefty argues, and it chiefly obtains to the establishment of state religions. But in the classical political thought of the Anglo-American tradition it pertains to more than just that: it goes to the prohibition of the state suppressing ideological expressions and practices at any time, any place or in any way. It pertains to the inalienable right of ideological free association and expression for every individual.

Hence, the Warren Court's rendition is bogus.

 

[JRK]

Well the good thing is the overwhelming majority of christians and conservatives completely disagree with you. GADawg is a christian, and I'm a hardcore conservative.

So blindly painting this in your typical partisan way is just a lie.

What exactly is my way?
search for the truth?

At no time have your read what my feelings with this matter is. What you have read and taken out of context is simple and accurate information
And what was that last part?
what part is a lie? can you show me where in the constitution it separates church and state?
That is a slanderous statement and i expect an apology

Your way is the partisan way, you're one of the biggest partisans on this board. Everything to you is democrat/lib vs republican/con.

Slanderous lol, what a crybaby.

I've already stated and twice repeated why it's gov't trying to establish religion in certain instances by constantly promoting christianity, just scroll up.

cry baby
as a liberal you have assumed my threads have stated more than they have
it is a simple sttatement that you have stated from that ideals I have made no comment on, simply put you have put words in the public arena and made them appear as though I said them
And as far as being a conservative and promoting my belief in Christ our lord?
deal with it
It is a struggle with right and wrong
I offer no apology for it no more than I would not respect you opinions on these matters

The matter of church and state does not exist a the liberal says it does in our constitution. THAT is all I have proclaimed
Thru the art of legeslation thru the bench, does not make it so

 

[Dr.Drock]

What exactly is my way?
search for the truth?

At no time have your read what my feelings with this matter is. What you have read and taken out of context is simple and accurate information
And what was that last part?
what part is a lie? can you show me where in the constitution it separates church and state?
That is a slanderous statement and i expect an apology

Your way is the partisan way, you're one of the biggest partisans on this board. Everything to you is democrat/lib vs republican/con.

Slanderous lol, what a crybaby.

I've already stated and twice repeated why it's gov't trying to establish religion in certain instances by constantly promoting christianity, just scroll up.

cry baby
as a liberal you have assumed my threads have stated more than they have
it is a simple sttatement that you have stated from that ideals I have made no comment on, simply put you have put words in the public arena and made them appear as though I said them
And as far as being a conservative and promoting my belief in Christ our lord?
deal with it
It is a struggle with right and wrong
I offer no apology for it no more than I would not respect you opinions on these matters

The matter of church and state does not exist a the liberal says it does in our constitution. THAT is all I have proclaimed
Thru the art of legeslation thru the bench, does not make it so

I'm certain you're far more liberal than me, your hero George Bush was way too liberal for me.

I've stated, and repeated multiple times on this very thread, I have no problem with you being open about your religious beliefs, have at it.

Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents, most everyone of all backgrounds and religious beliefs have a fond view of separation of church and state.

 

[JRK]

Your way is the partisan way, you're one of the biggest partisans on this board. Everything to you is democrat/lib vs republican/con.

Slanderous lol, what a crybaby.

I've already stated and twice repeated why it's gov't trying to establish religion in certain instances by constantly promoting christianity, just scroll up.

cry baby
as a liberal you have assumed my threads have stated more than they have
it is a simple sttatement that you have stated from that ideals I have made no comment on, simply put you have put words in the public arena and made them appear as though I said them
And as far as being a conservative and promoting my belief in Christ our lord?
deal with it
It is a struggle with right and wrong
I offer no apology for it no more than I would not respect you opinions on these matters

The matter of church and state does not exist a the liberal says it does in our constitution. THAT is all I have proclaimed
Thru the art of legeslation thru the bench, does not make it so

I'm certain you're far more liberal than me, your hero George Bush was way too liberal for me.

I've stated, and repeated multiple times on this very thread, I have no problem with you being open about your religious beliefs, have at it.

Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents, most everyone of all backgrounds and religious beliefs have a fond view of separation of church and state.

There u go again
I defend GWB because the truth or the lack of upsets me and it got BHO elected
Thats a view has nothing to do with what is in our constitution
you just do not get how simple this is

 

[Dr.Drock]

cry baby
as a liberal you have assumed my threads have stated more than they have
it is a simple sttatement that you have stated from that ideals I have made no comment on, simply put you have put words in the public arena and made them appear as though I said them
And as far as being a conservative and promoting my belief in Christ our lord?
deal with it
It is a struggle with right and wrong
I offer no apology for it no more than I would not respect you opinions on these matters

The matter of church and state does not exist a the liberal says it does in our constitution. THAT is all I have proclaimed
Thru the art of legeslation thru the bench, does not make it so

I'm certain you're far more liberal than me, your hero George Bush was way too liberal for me.

I've stated, and repeated multiple times on this very thread, I have no problem with you being open about your religious beliefs, have at it.

Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents, most everyone of all backgrounds and religious beliefs have a fond view of separation of church and state.

There u go again
I defend GWB because the truth or the lack of upsets me and it got BHO elected
Thats a view has nothing to do with what is in our constitution
you just do not get how simple this is

You defend GWB cuz you're one of the few partisans left who still thinks fondly of the man, most republicans even abandoned him, hence his final approval ratins in the 20's.

I get how simple it is, as do most everyone else including republicans, christians and conservatives, that's why people have stopped questioning the separation of church and state because they accept it and agree with it.

It's the tiny minority like you and couple people on this thread who don't get it.

 

[Foxfyre]

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

that doesn't say the church and state are to be separate. It says the state can not establish a state religion. This does not say there is a separation of church and state.

The full context "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."

See the part you left out in relation to religion "or prevent the free excercise therof"? By denying people, for example the ability to pray in public school as a govt policy, you are actually violating the first ammendment by preventing the free exercise thereof.


Again, find where the constitution says there is to be a separation of the church and state. All i see is that the govt can't say "protestant catholic" is the accepted state religion or "Islam sharia law" is the accepted state religion.

*sigh*

I'm on your side; I'm with you, but. . . .

There is a conceptual separation of church and state inherent to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, its body of thought. The Founders understood themselves to be implementing that separation of classical tradition in the terminology of the First Amendment. You're getting hung up on semantics and the phony rendition of that separation imposed by the Warren Court, which is not the construct of the Founders at all, but that of the collectivist democratic theory of Continental Europe.

Indeed, the construct of the Founders does not separate religious expression from the state in the sense that lefty argues, and it chiefly obtains to the establishment of state religions. But in the classical political thought of the Anglo-American tradition it pertains to more than just that: it goes to the prohibition of the state suppressing ideological expressions and practices at any time, any place or in any way. It pertains to the inalienable right of ideological free association and expression for every individual.

Hence, the Warren Court's rendition is bogus.

There is a motif that runs through a segment of the Old Testament that offered variations on the basic theme: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The people were frustrated that they did not have what they thought they wanted and they were frustrated that their neighbors did not behave to their liking, and they clamored for a king that would provide what they wanted and make everybody 'behave'. As the text continues, we find they got their king and a whole lot of unintended negative consequences.

The American Revolution was fought to rid the people of a 'king' (authoritarian government) and initiate the pure classical liberal concept of unalienable rights and a people who, with their rights secured, would govern themselves free of any form of king, monarchy, feudal lord, dicatator, totalitarian government etc. And for the hundred plus years this concept was protected and implemented, it produced the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most compassionate, most progressive nation the world had ever known.

But alas, a segment of society who didn't study the origins of this nation and know little of those origins, now find they don't have all they want and their neighbors don't behave as they think they should, and they clamor for a 'king' to provide what they think they want. Unfortunately a lot of those people have made it into our governing bodies and court system.

If we don't start reeducating people on the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, I do believe we will lose those amazing freedoms.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

that doesn't say the church and state are to be separate. It says the state can not establish a state religion. This does not say there is a separation of church and state.

The full context "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."

See the part you left out in relation to religion "or prevent the free excercise therof"? By denying people, for example the ability to pray in public school as a govt policy, you are actually violating the first ammendment by preventing the free exercise thereof.


Again, find where the constitution says there is to be a separation of the church and state. All i see is that the govt can't say "protestant catholic" is the accepted state religion or "Islam sharia law" is the accepted state religion.

*sigh*

I'm on your side; I'm with you, but. . . .

There is a conceptual separation of church and state inherent to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, its body of thought. The Founders understood themselves to be implementing that separation of classical tradition in the terminology of the First Amendment. You're getting hung up on semantics and the phony rendition of that separation imposed by the Warren Court, which is not the construct of the Founders at all, but that of the collectivist democratic theory of Continental Europe.

Indeed, the construct of the Founders does not separate religious expression from the state in the sense that lefty argues, and it chiefly obtains to the establishment of state religions. But in the classical political thought of the Anglo-American tradition it pertains to more than just that: it goes to the prohibition of the state suppressing ideological expressions and practices at any time, any place or in any way. It pertains to the inalienable right of ideological free association and expression for every individual.

Hence, the Warren Court's rendition is bogus.

There is a motif that runs through a segment of the Old Testament that offered variations on the basic theme: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The people were frustrated that they did not have what they thought they wanted and they were frustrated that their neighbors did not behave to their liking, and they clamored for a king that would provide what they wanted and make everybody 'behave'. As the text continues, we find they got their king and a whole lot of unintended negative consequences.

The American Revolution was fought to rid the people of a 'king' (authoritarian government) and initiate the pure classical liberal concept of unalienable rights and a people who, with their rights secured, would govern themselves free of any form of king, monarchy, feudal lord, dicatator, totalitarian government etc. And for the hundred plus years this concept was protected and implemented, it produced the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most compassionate, most progressive nation the world had ever known.

But alas, a segment of society who didn't study the origins of this nation and know little of those origins, now find they don't have all they want and their neighbors don't behave as they think they should, and they clamor for a 'king' to provide what they think they want. Unfortunately a lot of those people have made it into our governing bodies and court system.

If we don't start reeducating people on the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, I do believe we will lose those amazing freedoms.

Not much to add but I liked both of your posts (md and fox).

 

[JRK]

I'm certain you're far more liberal than me, your hero George Bush was way too liberal for me.

I've stated, and repeated multiple times on this very thread, I have no problem with you being open about your religious beliefs, have at it.

Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents, most everyone of all backgrounds and religious beliefs have a fond view of separation of church and state.

There u go again
I defend GWB because the truth or the lack of upsets me and it got BHO elected
Thats a view has nothing to do with what is in our constitution
you just do not get how simple this is

You defend GWB cuz you're one of the few partisans left who still thinks fondly of the man, most republicans even abandoned him, hence his final approval ratins in the 20's.

I get how simple it is, as do most everyone else including republicans, christians and conservatives, that's why people have stopped questioning the separation of church and state because they accept it and agree with it.

It's the tiny minority like you and couple people on this thread who don't get it.

Poll: Voters Split On Pres. Obama vs. Bush - Real Clear Politics &#8211; TIME.com
That should take care of the way people think of GWB

If so many people feel the wat you say they do then why is it not become a constitutional amendment?
all it needs is 2/3rds majority

 

[Dr.Drock]

There u go again
I defend GWB because the truth or the lack of upsets me and it got BHO elected
Thats a view has nothing to do with what is in our constitution
you just do not get how simple this is

You defend GWB cuz you're one of the few partisans left who still thinks fondly of the man, most republicans even abandoned him, hence his final approval ratins in the 20's.

I get how simple it is, as do most everyone else including republicans, christians and conservatives, that's why people have stopped questioning the separation of church and state because they accept it and agree with it.

It's the tiny minority like you and couple people on this thread who don't get it.

Poll: Voters Split On Pres. Obama vs.*Bush - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
That should take care of the way people think of GWB

If so many people feel the wat you say they do then why is it not become a constitutional amendment?
all it needs is 2/3rds majority

Thanks for the link, I agree Obama and Bush are/were both pretty shitty. Probably because of their mile long list of similarities politically.

Because it's unnecessary, everything the overwhelming majority of us who support separation of church and state is already provided.

 

[Foxfyre]

*sigh*

I'm on your side; I'm with you, but. . . .

There is a conceptual separation of church and state inherent to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, its body of thought. The Founders understood themselves to be implementing that separation of classical tradition in the terminology of the First Amendment. You're getting hung up on semantics and the phony rendition of that separation imposed by the Warren Court, which is not the construct of the Founders at all, but that of the collectivist democratic theory of Continental Europe.

Indeed, the construct of the Founders does not separate religious expression from the state in the sense that lefty argues, and it chiefly obtains to the establishment of state religions. But in the classical political thought of the Anglo-American tradition it pertains to more than just that: it goes to the prohibition of the state suppressing ideological expressions and practices at any time, any place or in any way. It pertains to the inalienable right of ideological free association and expression for every individual.

Hence, the Warren Court's rendition is bogus.

There is a motif that runs through a segment of the Old Testament that offered variations on the basic theme: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The people were frustrated that they did not have what they thought they wanted and they were frustrated that their neighbors did not behave to their liking, and they clamored for a king that would provide what they wanted and make everybody 'behave'. As the text continues, we find they got their king and a whole lot of unintended negative consequences.

The American Revolution was fought to rid the people of a 'king' (authoritarian government) and initiate the pure classical liberal concept of unalienable rights and a people who, with their rights secured, would govern themselves free of any form of king, monarchy, feudal lord, dicatator, totalitarian government etc. And for the hundred plus years this concept was protected and implemented, it produced the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most compassionate, most progressive nation the world had ever known.

But alas, a segment of society who didn't study the origins of this nation and know little of those origins, now find they don't have all they want and their neighbors don't behave as they think they should, and they clamor for a 'king' to provide what they think they want. Unfortunately a lot of those people have made it into our governing bodies and court system.

If we don't start reeducating people on the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, I do believe we will lose those amazing freedoms.

Not much to add but I liked both of your posts (md and fox).

The Reformation was the beginning of the people's determination to break away from the immoral, destructive, and oppressive church/state alliances that, in the 18th Century, existed pretty much throughout all of Europe and the near East. The American Revolution was fought to finally accomplish complete separation of religion (among other things) from government control.

If we again allow a 'pope' or 'archbishop' or 'king' or 'court' or any other component of the federal government dictate if or where we may pray, what and where we can place symbols or imagery, what songs we may sing and where, the concept of separation of church and state is not protected. Instead we have again allowed government to control the unalienable rights of the people re religion.

 

[JRK]

You defend GWB cuz you're one of the few partisans left who still thinks fondly of the man, most republicans even abandoned him, hence his final approval ratins in the 20's.

I get how simple it is, as do most everyone else including republicans, christians and conservatives, that's why people have stopped questioning the separation of church and state because they accept it and agree with it.

It's the tiny minority like you and couple people on this thread who don't get it.

Poll: Voters Split On Pres. Obama vs.*Bush - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
That should take care of the way people think of GWB

If so many people feel the wat you say they do then why is it not become a constitutional amendment?
all it needs is 2/3rds majority

Thanks for the link, I agree Obama and Bush are/were both pretty shitty. Probably because of their mile long list of similarities politically.

Because it's unnecessary, everything the overwhelming majority of us who support separation of church and state is already provided.

i have a post that reads Obama is GWB on super steriods
Its hard to admit when your wrong
the support of the seperation was not the threads subject matter
as you have tried to do here, but have failed to do just that

Perry has you to overcome to be our next president, the lies that got BHO elected to start with will be his worse enemy
I started a simple thread that as usual has been spun in a 100 different directions
I pray the truth will overcome this time

 

[Intense]

You are a ******* Idiot. The argument is not about you or your failed perspective,the argument existed before your birth. You want the perspective of The 1st New York Constitution, read it, moron.


Insults doesn't make your point any less phony. You are are not reading your own cut and paste job closely or bothering to read responses other than what canned arguments you have made. You don't quite understand the historical context of your own posts. What looks like to a modern perspective as exclusive endorsement of Christianity in that Constitution would not have been seen that way until at least the mid 19th Century. You are using an ahistorical and intentionally misleading interpretation of these things.

It was not people from states like NY or VA which stumped for the Establishment Clause in the first place it was people from states which specifically disavowed such official pronouncements of Christianity from their charters which did. People from Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. The people who introduced the Separation of Church and State to the Americas a century before the Revolution.

The one constant I see with you is you bending reality in your mind to make it fit your position. Hint. Go to the source, stop with the psychobabble.

Its not bending reality. Its understanding the text and its historical context. Something you are avoiding at all costs. You definitely seem to have trouble grasping that the Early US was not a religiously diverse nation. 99% Protestant or damn close to it. What was considered inclusive back then wouldn't fly 50 years after the Constitution was ratified. Much of those sources you cite would have either revised or dropped those references to Christianity altogether by the late 19th Century.

Plus you continue to ignore the roots of the Separation of Church and State from the 17th century.

Fail. Study the Link between Locke, Madison, Jefferson, even Thoreau. You are either misinformed or in denial. Again, your problem, the mounds of evidence are against you. Your premise is flawed, your understanding of mine is also flawed. Good try though.

You still missed it by a mile. You have to go back further than that. Study the influence of the Anabaptist sects on Early America, most notably their most famous sect, the Quakers. Then do some homework on the founding of RI and PA. There is plenty of documented evidence that the origin of Separation of Church and State predated your guys by at least a century. Read the essays of William Penn and do some homework on Roger Williams.

None of your references support your point unless you fail to take into account the historical/demographic contextual differences of the 18th Century American and today. Your perspective is all off.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[JRK]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-i-cannot-believe-it.html?highlight=steriods
for drock

 

[Dr.Drock]

Poll: Voters Split On Pres. Obama vs.*Bush - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com
That should take care of the way people think of GWB

If so many people feel the wat you say they do then why is it not become a constitutional amendment?
all it needs is 2/3rds majority

Thanks for the link, I agree Obama and Bush are/were both pretty shitty. Probably because of their mile long list of similarities politically.

Because it's unnecessary, everything the overwhelming majority of us who support separation of church and state is already provided.

i have a post that reads Obama is GWB on super steriods
Its hard to admit when your wrong
the support of the seperation was not the threads subject matter
as you have tried to do here, but have failed to do just that

Perry has you to overcome to be our next president, the lies that got BHO elected to start with will be his worse enemy
I started a simple thread that as usual has been spun in a 100 different directions
I pray the truth will overcome this time

I've already seen that thread, and I agree with you. Each president sets the bar a little lower than the last one. Obama is worse and a much more liberal spender than Bush, Bush was worse and a much more liberal spender than Clinton and you could go on and on down the line of presidents.

The trend will continue, and the next republican president will be even worse and spend even more liberally than Obama is.

 

[CryingKoala]

Fail. Study the Link between Locke, Madison, Jefferson, even Thoreau. You are either misinformed or in denial. Again, your problem, the mounds of evidence are against you. Your premise is flawed, your understanding of mine is also flawed. Good try though.

You still missed it by a mile. You have to go back further than that. Study the influence of the Anabaptist sects on Early America, most notably their most famous sect, the Quakers. Then do some homework on the founding of RI and PA. There is plenty of documented evidence that the origin of Separation of Church and State predated your guys by at least a century. Read the essays of William Penn and do some homework on Roger Williams.

None of your references support your point unless you fail to take into account the historical/demographic contextual differences of the 18th Century American and today. Your perspective is all off.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Got you beat by 2 generations. Roger Williams got to it ahead of Locke and was an American to boot.

Historical Baptist Quotes on the Separation of Church and State
Roger Williams in 1644
"When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams (New York: Russell & Russell Inc. 1963), Vol. 1, 108.
----
Williams argues that, when the separation between church and state is breached by the church, then the church itself suffers. Instead of a garden, it becomes an uncivilized wilderness, plagued by weeds and undergrowth. It is likely that Williams is referencing a parable in Matthew:

He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. ...

The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels..." (Matthew 13:24-39)

Even as early as 1644, then, people recognized that a "wall of separation" between the church and the state was not a wall which only worked "one way." Instead, it was something which should protect both church and state from each other, ensuring that both could fulfill their functions properly.
Communist Church/State Separation - Is Church/State Separation a Communist Plot

 

[JRK]

Thanks for the link, I agree Obama and Bush are/were both pretty shitty. Probably because of their mile long list of similarities politically.

Because it's unnecessary, everything the overwhelming majority of us who support separation of church and state is already provided.

i have a post that reads Obama is GWB on super steriods
Its hard to admit when your wrong
the support of the seperation was not the threads subject matter
as you have tried to do here, but have failed to do just that

Perry has you to overcome to be our next president, the lies that got BHO elected to start with will be his worse enemy
I started a simple thread that as usual has been spun in a 100 different directions
I pray the truth will overcome this time

I've already seen that thread, and I agree with you. Each president sets the bar a little lower than the last one. Obama is worse and a much more liberal spender than Bush, Bush was worse and a much more liberal spender than Clinton and you could go on and on down the line of presidents.

The trend will continue, and the next republican president will be even worse and spend even more liberally than Obama is.

Other than GWB medicare program he did a very good job
the wars?
people have there feelings and they for the most part changed with the what ever the press told them to think

GWB was within 2.5 trillion of 8 years of a balanced budget, deficit, not DEBT

9-11 eat up 1/2 of that, more if you take into account the loss of revenue 01-03
his medicare program took about 400 billion

My friend, thats a far cry from being a liberal and its not in the same ball park as Obama. we would be in so much better shape with 5% UE and 163 billion in defict

that would be 2007
the last GOP budget

 

[Dr.Drock]

i have a post that reads Obama is GWB on super steriods
Its hard to admit when your wrong
the support of the seperation was not the threads subject matter
as you have tried to do here, but have failed to do just that

Perry has you to overcome to be our next president, the lies that got BHO elected to start with will be his worse enemy
I started a simple thread that as usual has been spun in a 100 different directions
I pray the truth will overcome this time

I've already seen that thread, and I agree with you. Each president sets the bar a little lower than the last one. Obama is worse and a much more liberal spender than Bush, Bush was worse and a much more liberal spender than Clinton and you could go on and on down the line of presidents.

The trend will continue, and the next republican president will be even worse and spend even more liberally than Obama is.

Other than GWB medicare program he did a very good job
the wars?
people have there feelings and they for the most part changed with the what ever the press told them to think

GWB was within 2.5 trillion of 8 years of a balanced budget, deficit, not DEBT

9-11 eat up 1/2 of that, more if you take into account the loss of revenue 01-03
his medicare program took about 400 billion

My friend, thats a far cry from being a liberal and its not in the same ball park as Obama. we would be in so much better shape with 5% UE and 163 billion in defict

that would be 2007
the last GOP budget

Skyrocketing debt, skyrocketing spending, huge growth of the dept of education including no child left behind, expanding gov't by inventing the dept of homeland security, the liberal notion of "saving Iraq from an evil dictator", welfare budgets that set records all 8 years of his presidency in terms of spending, I could go on all day, you can make excuses for it as a partisan, as a conservative I cannot.