Dominionists run for highest office in US

[catzmeow]

Recall Bachmann’s ‘legal training’ is based on the dogma that American law should be predicated on the bible, not the Constitution. And that any law that doesn’t conform to Christian dogma should be ‘changed.’

Bachman is probably a dominionist. Thankfully, the constitution offers solid protections against even a dominionist in the white house.

 

[catzmeow]

Article today in the Daily Beast by Michelle Goldberg.

Dominionism: Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry

This begs the question of what should be done. My view is simple: Put the information out there, let the voters decide. Our system isn't going to topple because a dominionist is in the white house. IN fact, were that to occur, the person would likely overreach and cause a major backlash that would subsequently set the dominionist movement back considerably.

Are Perry/Bachman dominionists? Probably. Am i worried about that? Not really.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two of these GOP candidates are dominionists, Perry and Bachmann. The GOP is now the party of religious extremism.

I want to keep separation of church and state. I do not want to live in a theocracy just because George Washington prayed. I hope all Presidents pray. That's not the point. The point is not making Christianity the official religion and the US a theocracy.

I do not want state sponsored organized Christian prayers in public school. I do not want religion taught in science class. I do not want to see Christian prayers plastered on every school and government building in the US.

I want to see all American citizens free to be atheists, theists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, LDS, JW etc etc etc.

Bachmann most certainly will revoke any gay rights. She wants to reverse DADT, and she wants to make sure that gay children and teenagers continue to be bullied in school, because she doesn't want gays to be considered "normal" or even citizens. She opposes marriage equality. That is CIVIL marriage. Marriage by a justice of the peace in a courthouse. It has nothing to do with her damn church.

Perry's whole prayer rally was funded by domionists. He is clueless about separation of church and state.

Both candidates have every right to run, I question their fitness to serve as POTUS. Having a dominionist President would be horrible for our country.

I'm happy for you, that you sew for the poor and that you consider that your ministry.

I don't agree with your assessment of the Founders. Christian reconstructionism is the re-writing of history to make it seem that the US has always been a "Christian nation". That is BS.

You live in Texas and don't watch TV. I don't watch TV either. Maybe you read newspapers. Do you have any idea what you Texans have done to the public school history curriculum? Completely rewritten it from a right wing perspective. Look into it.

Texas wants to reinstitute sodomy laws and start locking up gay people again. You execute more people in Texas than they do in many countries Perry is a strong supporter of this.

I am a second generation gay person. My father was gay. I offer my gay civil rights activism in memory of him. I know you don't share my concerns. That's ok. I have them nonetheless. I haven't walked in your shoes this lifetime and you haven't walked in mine.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate more than you can imagine your committment to separation of church and state.

Do you think atheists have a right to serve their country too?

Proof Perry is a dominionist, "Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business." Damn him and his attempt to let people marry whoever they want. He should know better!

Perry voiced support for a federal marriage amendment similar to the statewide amendment in Texas passed during his administration that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
"To not pass the federal marriage amendment would impinge on Texas and other states not to have marriage forced upon them," Perry said.

He wants to bring back the sodomy laws so gays can be locked up. Yeah, he really wants us to be happy.

Obama supports DOMA, except when he doesn't. Yet you never called him a Dominionist, despite the fact that Liberation Theology is predicated on promoting a social agenda through government power.

Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And YOU think I exaggerate. I'm not the slightest bit interested in burning down your freakin church.

Separation of church and state. No theocracy. That's what this is about. My right to practice my religion just like YOU get to practice YOURS.

Once again for the truly SLOW and STUPID. There is no CHANCE of a theocracy in the United States. Even if Bachmann or Perry get elected there is not 218 Congressman or 51 Senators or 37 States that support the theocracy argument.

You claim you are protecting the 1st Amendment while DEMANDING certain religious people be persecuted for their religious beliefs, You demand that certain religions be denied the right to worship and run for Office.

You not they are threatening the Constitution.

This is ridiculous. Perry and Bachmann are running for POTUS, as is their right. That makes them open to criticism. I am pointing out that both are dominionist. If you think that in itself constitutes "persecution" then you give me far more credit than I deserve.

I am ONE person who opposes dominionism. You don't seem to mind it, that's your choice.

I am NOT denying Bachmann nor Perry the right to run for POTUS. I am warning people about what dominionism is, and that I consider it a grave threat to the United States.

I am DEMANDING nothing. I am saying I don't think Perry or Bachmann are good choices for POTUS. That is MY right as an American citizen.

It is YOU who wish to silence me. It is YOU who are slow to understand my position.

You are not pointing out anything, you are making wild accusations and stringing together an outrageous chain of evidence and calling it proof. That is the exact same thing that Birthers and Truthers do, and every oter conspiracy nut in the world.

Most sane people call that paranoid delusions, which is why I have repeatedly advocated drugs. You obviously need help.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The points are factual and easily checked.

The points ARE factual and easily checked, but you won't see that happening here.

When claims are made, it is customary to backup said claims with evidence...

Not reply with "go check my facts yourself", like JokeStarkey does...

Dumbfucks... Both of you...

Have to agree there. Even when Starkey is right he is wrong because he never provides evidence to back himself up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The points are factual and easily checked.

The points ARE factual and easily checked, but you won't see that happening here.

That's because some of these folks prefer to be ignorant. They'd rather close their eyes and ears. For some reason, some Christians feel totally threatened by ANY topic even remotely connected to Christianity. Dominionism is heresy. I would have expected more Christians to denounce it.

There are a couple of folks who will demand more and more proof, but it's BS. They don't accept any source of information besides Fox News and WorldNetDaily. It's an exercise in futility to acquiesce to their demands.

I am heartened to see some people come out and say they DON'T want a theocracy in the US.

It's enough for me that people, at least, have heard of this movement, and may pay a bit of attention to it.

The fact that it is the ideology of TWO GOP candidates for POTUS makes it noteworthy.

You don't know enough about Christianity to accurately discuss theology. Are you even aware that there are different types of dominionism? You are as gulity of misrepresenting dominionism as the real activists in dominionism are of misrepresenting Christianity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can I get a post or quote from someone on this board who wants a theocracy?

The really strange thing is that if God wanted a Theocracy there would not be anything that anyone could do about it. If it is not coming from God, it is merely Sacredotal. The last thing anyone running for president actually wants is someone else to have power, so I automatically dismiss any claims that they are wand to give power to other people who they cannot control.

Which is another reason I do not worry about the clergy running the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who believes government should be run by their interpretation of 'biblical principles' at the expense of constitutional law probably is a supporter of theocratic government.

Anyone who disagrees with you about anything is probably right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who believes government should be run by their interpretation of 'biblical principles' at the expense of constitutional law probably is a supporter of theocratic government.

Recall Bachmann’s ‘legal training’ is based on the dogma that American law should be predicated on the bible, not the Constitution. And that any law that doesn’t conform to Christian dogma should be ‘changed.’

Where do you get that tidbit of information? Are you aware that the Institute of Bill of Rights law is probably the best source of Constitutional scholarship in the country? Do you really think that anyone that graduated from William and Mary is taught that the Bible is the source of the Constitution? I am sure they do not come out of that college believing that, nor do they believe that Supreme Court rulings become part of the Constitution.

 

[freedombecki]

One, the moment of prayer referred to did not occur. Period.
Two, Washington believed in God but not in the sense evangelicals understand.

Three, Washington did not take communion after being challenged to do so by his Priest. Ever after, when at Arlington on Sundays, he walked in the church garden during Holy Eucharist.

Four, Washington would never support dominionism.

And what are you using to back that up? All I asked for was some proof of some kind other than people just saying so.

As to point four, I don't think anyone was even remotely trying to make the assertion that he would.

The points are factual and easily checked.

Jake, I'm convinced you haven't cracked a book nor read much on George Washington.

General Washington's prayer was witnessed by a man who owned property near where his troops were camped. He saw Washington and told other townspeople about his praying out in the open.

The following account is taken from the "Diary and Remembrances" of the Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister and graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College, who was born in 1770 and died in 1851. Rev. Snowden stated:

"I knew personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen'l Washington alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself. Weems mentioned it in his history of Washington, but I got it from the man myself, as follows:
​

"I was riding with him (Mr. Potts) in Montgomery County, Penn'a near to the Valley Forge, where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution. Mr. Potts was a Senator in our State and a Whig. I told him I was agreeably surprised to find him a friend to his country as the Quakers were mostly Tories. He said, 'It was so and I was a rank Tory once, for I never believed that America c'd proceed against Great Britain whose fleets and armies covered the land and ocean, but something very extraordinary converted me to the Good Faith!" "What was that," I inquired? 'Do you see that woods, and that plain. It was about a quarter of a mile off from the place we were riding, as it happened.' 'There,' said he, 'laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling and went quietly into the woods and to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, and the cause of the country, of humanity and of the world.
​

'Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying.



'I went home and told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen and heard and observed. We never thought a man c'd be a soldier and a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause of God, and America could prevail.' "He then to me put out his right hand and said 'I turned right about and became a Whig.'"

There are several other accounts of the Prayer at Valley Forge, mostly differing in minor details, but remaining substantially the same. One even exists in the writing of Isaac Potts' own daughter Ruth-Anna, who died in 1811. She relates the story even down to the detail of Potts converting to the American cause after seeing General Washington in prayer.

​

Also, you might like to peruse "Papers of George Washington" here.

I'll only share one of them:

The Thanksgiving Proclamation

New York, 3 October 1789

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/transcript.html#Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]​

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

​

There are 65,000 documents of George Washington at the Library of Congress.


He served as a vestryman at his church's parish. The man was devoted to God and especially, to his fellow countrymen, whom he served for as long as he could when they asked. After 8 years of being the President, he just wanted to go home to Mount Vernon for the rest of his life. He'd served long, and he knew it was time to turn over the reins of power to somebody else. He was a liked man and beloved by Americans, still is.
​

 

[freedombecki]

Another Christian blowing it off. Did you go to Perry's prayer rally or watch all 6 1/2 hours of it on TV?

That's not true at all skydancer. I am not blowing "it" off.

Noticing only one of General Washington's moments of prayer for his barefoot troops at Valley forge you call blowing off "Dominionism?" Madam, I challenge you to read Washington's presidential papers. He references his omnipotent Christian God in most every one of his Presidential letters and papers. In fact he has defended God in most every way Newby has on this USMB board thread in his official acts. God is everywhere in Washington's papers. He encouraged others to honor God in just about everything he said or did by merely speaking his mind about how he felt about God's presence in his life and in America's life.

Not one single candidate on the campaign trail has mentioned God as many times as Washington did in a week in office, and the nation did not fall apart but in fact, was strengthened by George Washington out of sheer respect for this gentle giant who prayed for and wept at the sight of his troops' perilous worn-out clothing and shoes.

I merely shared a picture of Washington doing what he did every day--in his rising, in his each and every meeting, in his planning, in every paper he executed in office, and he remembered God to every one who faced him. Out loud and with a reassuring polite manner.

The recent competitors for the U.S. Presidency aren't a quarter as outspoken on religion as our first several Presidents were.

In fact the Founders were so religious they wrote the First Amendment about free speech in regard to Religion, that we shall not direct ANY LAW whatsoever with re to the practice of religion, including the Christian religion and those who practice speaking about it.
As for your query, "Did you go to Perry's prayer rally or watch all 6 1/2 hours of it on TV?"

I didn't go to and didn't see one minute of Perry's prayer rally. Someone told me our Church's pastor went to the meeting, but he did not incorporate any of it (to my knowledge) into his sermon because he is trained in our own church's seminary, not someone else's, and he follows a disciplined and trained analysis of New as well as Old Testament lessons according to translations from the Greek and Aramaic writings.

The reason I don't watch television too much is because my ministry is in sewing. I sew quilts for the poor that look like I made them for the rich, because my bible says when we help those who cannot help themselves, we are helping God's people. I believe it, too. It does not leave me the luxury of time to watch events on television. I'm the slave of the poor, skydancer. I do it because I believe it is my best way to serve the God of who I believes loves even such a one as me.

I'm simply not critical of people who are open about their Christian faith. The First Amendment has only my admiration when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...etc."

I plan on supporting the First Amendment. People have the right to say what they think about their beliefs.

Not one of these candidates will be revoking any Gay rights. Not one. Yes, they have religious beliefs. No, they will not make religion into law. They cannot, firstly, because Congress makes the laws, and they cannot and would not establish a religious law according to the First Amendment out of respect for the founders who wrote the First Amendment clearly and in no uncertain terms.

Since I'm not blowing your deep worries off, I am wondering what purpose you have of accusing these candidates ahead of time of somehow endangering you by encouraging the passage of their religion. How would they force Congress to break the First Amendment?

I'm telling you, it ain't gonna happen. Do you see why this is so?

These people aren't dummies, they're Republican candidates for the highest office in the land. They're not going to erase Bill of Rights guarantees into some kind of a 3-ring religious circus. It wouldn't be fitting of them as persons voters entrust the defense of the Constitution. IOW: It ain't gonna happen.

We Republicans support the Bill of Rights. To the nines. You're completely safe.

I'm afraid I can't encourage you to not worry, because you're worried about somebody taking away what you feel was rightly granted to you. It won't be me supporting anyone who would do such a thing.

And there isn't one single candidate in any party who has the power to absolve the First Amendment of establishing a law about their religious beliefs from the Bill of Rights.

Two of these GOP candidates are dominionists, Perry and Bachmann. The GOP is now the party of religious extremism.

I want to keep separation of church and state. I do not want to live in a theocracy just because George Washington prayed. I hope all Presidents pray. That's not the point. The point is not making Christianity the official religion and the US a theocracy.

I do not want state sponsored organized Christian prayers in public school. I do not want religion taught in science class. I do not want to see Christian prayers plastered on every school and government building in the US.

I want to see all American citizens free to be atheists, theists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, LDS, JW etc etc etc.

Bachmann most certainly will revoke any gay rights. She wants to reverse DADT, and she wants to make sure that gay children and teenagers continue to be bullied in school, because she doesn't want gays to be considered "normal" or even citizens. She opposes marriage equality. That is CIVIL marriage. Marriage by a justice of the peace in a courthouse. It has nothing to do with her damn church.

Perry's whole prayer rally was funded by domionists. He is clueless about separation of church and state.

Both candidates have every right to run, I question their fitness to serve as POTUS. Having a dominionist President would be horrible for our country.

I'm happy for you, that you sew for the poor and that you consider that your ministry.

I don't agree with your assessment of the Founders. Christian reconstructionism is the re-writing of history to make it seem that the US has always been a "Christian nation". That is BS.

You live in Texas and don't watch TV. I don't watch TV either. Maybe you read newspapers. Do you have any idea what you Texans have done to the public school history curriculum? Completely rewritten it from a right wing perspective. Look into it.

Texas wants to reinstitute sodomy laws and start locking up gay people again. You execute more people in Texas than they do in many countries Perry is a strong supporter of this.

I am a second generation gay person. My father was gay. I offer my gay civil rights activism in memory of him. I know you don't share my concerns. That's ok. I have them nonetheless. I haven't walked in your shoes this lifetime and you haven't walked in mine.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate more than you can imagine your committment to separation of church and state.

Do you think atheists have a right to serve their country too?

You cannot tell from my writing above? I said "We Republicans support the Bill of Rights. To the nines. You're completely safe." I consider the other amendments an extension of these civil rights.

 

[catzmeow]

Jake, I'm convinced you haven't cracked a book nor read much on George Washington.

General Washington's prayer was witnessed by a man who owned property near where his troops were camped. He saw Washington and told other townspeople about his praying out in the open.

Most modern scholars believe the Snowden story was wishful thinking. Nice try, though.

 

[Newby]

Jake, I'm convinced you haven't cracked a book nor read much on George Washington.

General Washington's prayer was witnessed by a man who owned property near where his troops were camped. He saw Washington and told other townspeople about his praying out in the open.

Most modern scholars believe the Snowden story was wishful thinking. Nice try, though.

But, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen either tho. No one can know for sure, so for anyone to say their 'facts' are correct is very misleading in my opinion. If eye witnesses say they saw it, how can scholars hundreds of years later decide it didn't happen based on their studies. I'd tend to go with the legend, something started it.

 

[catzmeow]

But, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen either tho. No one can know for sure, so for anyone to say their 'facts' are correct is very misleading in my opinion. If eye witnesses say they saw it, how can scholars hundreds of years later decide it didn't happen based on their studies. I'd tend to go with the legend, something started it.

In context, a lot of ministers were trying to "own" the George Washington myth for themselves. If you were going to look at it from a scholarly perspective, you would determine when this story was first reported (was it timely or much, much later?), whether it fit with Washington's writings and other behavior on the subject, and whether it was substantiated by others.

The Valley Forge historical society, where the event allegedly occurred, has stated that the facts don't line up in this particular account.

Shockingly, people lie, particularly when talking about famous people. Everyone wants a piece of the myth.

In that sense, imagine that this story was being told about Princess Diana by a local minister. What motives might he have for putting forward a story that she prayed in his church? It would potentially build credibilty for his church. He might profit from it in higher membership numbers and higher levels of donations and more visitors. it is an opportunity to ride on her coattails to greater fame.

Beyond that, there was a considerable degree of hero worship for George Washington, particularly in the 1800s. A lot of Parson Weems' biography is embroidered to make Washington look even better. The cherry tree story, for instance, is not factual.

Why would Christians be trotting this story out now? To build credibility for the idea that this nation was created as a theocracy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, I'm convinced you haven't cracked a book nor read much on George Washington.

General Washington's prayer was witnessed by a man who owned property near where his troops were camped. He saw Washington and told other townspeople about his praying out in the open.

Most modern scholars believe the Snowden story was wishful thinking. Nice try, though.

Those who are well informed, well read on this subject, and have no axe to grind generally believe that Snowden story is a myth. The painting we see based on it is a graphic myth.

 

[peach174]

Liberals don't seem to be able to get it in their heads that our Constitution is to limit government powers.
Government is not suppose to make any laws in establishing any religion or prohibiting their free exercise of it.
No Christian has ever said that we were or ever was a Theocracy. Nor are they doing it now.
Government can not go into religion but religion can go into our government.
This is why we have opening prayer in the House, Senate and The Supreme Court every morning before the opening of business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals don't seem to be able to get it in their heads that our Constitution is to limit government powers.
Government is not suppose to make any laws in establishing any religion or prohibiting their free exercise of it.
No Christian has ever said that we were or ever was a Theocracy. Nor are they doing it now.
Government can not go into religion but religion can go into our government.
This is why we have opening prayer in the House, Senate and The Supreme Court every morning before the opening of business.

Organized religion cannot go into government. The government certainly can prohibit the free exercise of religion; check Reynolds v. U.S. 1879 for such an example, or Warren Jeffs v. State of Texas.

However, religious values of people do inform how government works, such as the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. That does not mean the government gets to tell kids how and when and what to pray to in public schools.

 

[peach174]

Liberals don't seem to be able to get it in their heads that our Constitution is to limit government powers.
Government is not suppose to make any laws in establishing any religion or prohibiting their free exercise of it.
No Christian has ever said that we were or ever was a Theocracy. Nor are they doing it now.
Government can not go into religion but religion can go into our government.
This is why we have opening prayer in the House, Senate and The Supreme Court every morning before the opening of business.

Organized religion cannot go into government. The government certainly can prohibit the free exercise of religion; check Reynolds v. U.S. 1879 for such an example, or Warren Jeffs v. State of Texas.

However, religious values of people do inform how government works, such as the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. That does not mean the government gets to tell kids how and when and what to pray to in public schools.

It never was organized religion.
It does have the right to prohibit harmful religion to others.

Our schools did have neutral prayer before atheists got neutral prayer out of schools.
Government never told kids how and when and what to pray.
When we had neutral prayer it never indoctrinated any religion. Your parents had the right to teach you if there was a God or not. And that you had the right to not say the prayer.
Now it has become, you don't have the right to bring your religion into school or public expression, or government.
That is a direct violation of our constitutional rights.
Because of this we have not able to teach very much about US History because too much religion was interwoven into it.
We were a Christian nation at the beginning and we are Christian nation now.
We have the right to celebrate Christmas in our schools, on our government buildings on our city streets and in our stores.
The minority has now ruled over the majority and that is completely unconstitutional.
Jesus is the reason for the season and the minority of atheists and a few others are trying to shut it up.
It is prohibiting the free exercise (unconstitutional)

 

[Sky Dancer]

Liberals don't seem to be able to get it in their heads that our Constitution is to limit government powers.
Government is not suppose to make any laws in establishing any religion or prohibiting their free exercise of it.
No Christian has ever said that we were or ever was a Theocracy. Nor are they doing it now.
Government can not go into religion but religion can go into our government.
This is why we have opening prayer in the House, Senate and The Supreme Court every morning before the opening of business.

Organized religion cannot go into government. The government certainly can prohibit the free exercise of religion; check Reynolds v. U.S. 1879 for such an example, or Warren Jeffs v. State of Texas.

However, religious values of people do inform how government works, such as the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. That does not mean the government gets to tell kids how and when and what to pray to in public schools.

It did before atheists got neutral prayer out of schools.
Government never told kids how and when and what to pray.
When we had neutral prayer it never indoctrinated any religion. Your parents had the right to teach you if there was a God or not. And that you had the right to not say the prayer.
Now it has become, you don't have the right to bring your religion into school or public expression, or government.
That is a direct violation of our constitutional rights.
Because of this we have not able to teach very much about US History because too much religion was interwoven into it.
We were a Christian nation at the beginning and we are Christian nation now.
We have the right to celebrate Christmas in our schools, on our government buildings on our city streets and in our stores.
The minority has now ruled over the majority and that is completely unconstitutional.
Jesus is the reason for the season and the minority of atheists and a few others are trying to shut it up.
It is prohibiting the free exercise (unconstituioal)

There is no such thing as "neutral prayer", except silence. Where did this alleged "neutral" prayer come from? Christianity. Your rights are in no way endangered if we don't allow teachers to lead Christian prayers in public school classrooms.
If prayer in school is THAT necessary, you ought to homeschool your kids or send them to Christian schools.

NO one is stopping Christmas. That "culture war" was invented by the right wing. God forbid you might say "Happy Hannukah" to a Jew, or "Season's Greetings" to an atheist. You don't have the right to place RELIGIOUS symbols in government buildings. There are non-religious ways to honor the season.

There is separation of church and state. Recognize that YOUR religious freedom is actually protected by that premise.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Liberals don't seem to be able to get it in their heads that our Constitution is to limit government powers.
Government is not suppose to make any laws in establishing any religion or prohibiting their free exercise of it.
No Christian has ever said that we were or ever was a Theocracy. Nor are they doing it now.
Government can not go into religion but religion can go into our government.
This is why we have opening prayer in the House, Senate and The Supreme Court every morning before the opening of business.

Organized religion cannot go into government. The government certainly can prohibit the free exercise of religion; check Reynolds v. U.S. 1879 for such an example, or Warren Jeffs v. State of Texas.

However, religious values of people do inform how government works, such as the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS. That does not mean the government gets to tell kids how and when and what to pray to in public schools.

It did before atheists got neutral prayer out of schools.
Government never told kids how and when and what to pray.
When we had neutral prayer it never indoctrinated any religion. Your parents had the right to teach you if there was a God or not. And that you had the right to not say the prayer.
Now it has become, you don't have the right to bring your religion into school or public expression, or government.
That is a direct violation of our constitutional rights.
Because of this we have not able to teach very much about US History because too much religion was interwoven into it.
We were a Christian nation at the beginning and we are Christian nation now.
We have the right to celebrate Christmas in our schools, on our government buildings on our city streets and in our stores.
The minority has now ruled over the majority and that is completely unconstitutional.
Jesus is the reason for the season and the minority of atheists and a few others are trying to shut it up.
It is prohibiting the free exercise (unconstituioal)

1.) Parents can teach their kids about god(s), not sure what crazy notion makes you think now they can't.
2.) You can pray at school, you can bring your bible or quran to school, all the above. Just the teacher or government can't force you to pray.
3.) I'm 26, I was taught all about religion in high school, so that's another lie, it does happen.
4.) We're a nation with a population of mostly christians, not a christian nation.
5.) Not sure which season you're talking about, I thought you guys said God created everything?