Yup this Administration is Helping the "People"

[Sooner8th]

Hey matlock8th, where is this so called separation of church and state? It doesn't exist. It is a recent liberal judge / progressive construct to tear this country down. The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion. No mention of God not in our government or policies... In fact, most Founding Fathers had a strong belief in God and a strong faith. They would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government.

This is where the talking down to people comes in. It is stupid sh!t like this that makes me talk down to people on this board.

Where do you get this crap at? Have you even read the constitution? Hint - it's the first amendment.

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.

Did you just skip over the part about respecting an establishment of religion? You know - the very first thing in the amendment! You did, didn't you?

Let see that part about "They (Founding Fathers) would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government. Let's see is Thomas Jefferson a Founding Fathers? Remind me who WROTE the constitution. Oh that's right, it's James Madison. Let's see if Jimmy would be "appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government".

James Madison on the first amendment

The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty; its principle the great barrier agst [against] usurpations on the rights of conscience.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785;

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.



The person who wrote the constitution including the first amendment was completely for the separation of church and state.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What part of congress shall pass no law...in my statement don't you get. You are stupid as a rock.

[Sooner8th]

What part of congress shall pass no law...in my statement don't you get. You are stupid as a rock.

This is your statement:

The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion.

My statement was:

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.

Did you just skip over the part about respecting an establishment of religion? You know - the very first thing in the amendment! You did, didn't you?


You left out an establishment of religion - which is what I said you left out. Why are you arguing this point with me? It's in black and white.

Now apologize like a good little dumbass conservative who cannot read.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

To quote Monty Python..."I fart in your general direction"

[Sooner8th]

To quote Monty Python..."I fart in your general direction"

That's it? That's all you got?

You make a claim

"Hey matlock8th, where is this so called separation of church and state? It doesn't exist. It is a recent liberal judge / progressive construct to tear this country down. The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion."

When I show you it's in the constitution you act like it doesn't exist by focusing on pass no law. You claim "They (founding fathers) would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government." is just false, all you got is some weak ***, lame Monty Python quote.

You wanted to have is discussion, not lets have one. BOTH of your claims are wrong. I ask again - where do you get crap this at?

[Sooner in Tampa]

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.

It seems to me, and this just one man's opinion...that Christians are certainly being infringed upon when it comes to "the free exercise thereof". The Constitution does not inhibit public displays of faith.

Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

Faith is not a civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.

Limitations on government have been altered into restrictions on religious expression, which clearly violates the amendment’s next clause: “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and third clause “abridging the freedom of speech.”

The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

In a nutshell, government may neither compel nor prohibit religious exercise.

government may not prescribe religious exercise; the Free Exercise side says that government may not proscribe, disfavor or otherwise punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. But the two phrases are two sides of the same coin. It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.” It simply does not help explain the true meaning of the First Amendment.

Under the original meaning of the Constitution, government must protect religious choices and include religious persons, groups, and speakers on an equal basis. It may recognize and accommodate religion, as long as it does not in effect compel persons to engage in religious exercises or practices against their will—the hallmark of what an “establishment of religion” was understood to mean at the time the framers wrote the First Amendment.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/

[dwarthog]

Ok dwarthog you have already embarrassed yourself and showed how stupid you are by claiming the reason religious affiliated groups were not able to get grants was because they were 501(c)3s. Which simply is not true, that grant money was going to 501(c)3s and the reason religious affiliated groups were because of separation of church and state constitutional issues.

Now if bush was simply allowing them to compete for these grant and contracts why did he feel it necessary to open up an office in the white house to direct the money?

So what if obama did the same thing. Why should he behave any different than bush?

You made a claim that "This was all enabled by a supreme court ruling" Show me the ruling.

I love it when you show how stupid you are.

Google challenged as well I see.

The supreme court ruling you can't find, and no I'm not going to explain it to you either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._Helms

Regarding 501c3 and faith based organizations, it's more accurate to say they weren't set up as such because they didn't know how to do so, which the grants enabled.

So now they can have a "church" side and a charity side which operates under the 501c3 guidelines just like all of your favorite lib orgs out there that ostensibly do not engage in politics either.

[SoonerorLater]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

So as long as Congress does not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion then the constitutional requirement has been met.

That is all it says. Nothing more. Nothing less

[Sooner8th]

Google challenged as well I see.

The supreme court ruling you can't find, and no I'm not going to explain it to you either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._Helms

Regarding 501c3 and faith based organizations, it's more accurate to say they weren't set up as such because they didn't know how to do so, which the grants enabled.

So now they can have a "church" side and a charity side which operates under the 501c3 guidelines just like all of your favorite lib orgs out there that ostensibly do not engage in politics either.

Reading challenged as well I see.

There is NOTHING on the site about being a 501c3. The whole thing is about separation of church and state.

Background[edit]
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds via state educational agencies to local educational agencies.[1] In turn, educational materials and equipment were lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and non ideological" programs.[2]
In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools. Taxpayers filed suit, arguing that this violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.[3]
Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."[3]

[dwarthog]

Reading challenged as well I see.

There is NOTHING on the site about being a 501c3. The whole thing is about separation of church and state.

Background[edit]
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds via state educational agencies to local educational agencies.[1] In turn, educational materials and equipment were lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and non ideological" programs.[2]
In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools. Taxpayers filed suit, arguing that this violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.[3]
Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."[3]

You display an abysmal ability to connect the dots.

Do you get up in the AM and plug in the DNC portal and get your thoughts for the day? They tell you something is true then that is the way it has to be, so disengage cognitive processes and resume auto pilot?

If you paid for a college education, you got taken to the cleaners dude...

[Sooner8th]

You display an abysmal ability to connect the dots.

Do you get up in the AM and plug in the DNC portal and get your thoughts for the day? They tell you something is true then that is the way it has to be, so disengage cognitive processes and resume auto pilot?

If you paid for a college education, you got taken to the cleaners dude...

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

[dwarthog]

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!

[olevetonahill]

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!

Make sure and give him his award

[Sooner in Tampa]

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL!!!!

[Sooner8th]

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!

Take the link you provided and copy and paste the sentence or paragraph that says it was about 501(c)3's.

I have already provided a link that says point blank it was about separation of church and state.

[Sooner8th]

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL!!!!

From one of the leading founding fathers

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

[Sooner in Tampa]

Hey dumbass....you **** is from 1802, when people actually understood what TJ was saying...but because the libtards bastardize everything...

Two can play your little petulant game

Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”

[SoonerorLater]

From one of the leading founding fathers

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

To most people this would be obvious but a letter written to a Babtist group by Thomas Jefferson is not a Constitutional Mandate. Secondly Jefferson describes in this letter exactly what that "Wall" is. It is the prohibition of the LEGISLATURE from making any LAWS regarding with respect to religion. The wording of the amendment is clear. It has been highjacked to suit popular progressive social thought.

[Sooner8th]

To most people this would be obvious but a letter written to a Babtist group by Thomas Jefferson is not a Constitutional Mandate. Secondly Jefferson describes in this letter exactly what that "Wall" is. It is the prohibition of the LEGISLATURE from making any LAWS regarding with respect to religion. The wording of the amendment is clear. It has been highjacked to suit popular progressive social thought.

I find it funny you guys LOVE to quote the founding fathers and their intentions, right up until you disagree with them. Yes it is clear, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As shown above, jefferson did not want to have the government to in anyway promote one religion or a sect of a religion over another, that is clear. His letter was an answer to a letter written by the Baptists -

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted."

I believe in the wall between region and the government. Having the wall does not keep me from practicing my religion. And it does not use tax payer dollars from those who are not christian for crosses or any other christian symbols. Frankly, I really don't see what the big deal is, how does not having a cross on a building effect you?

Let's compare your interpretation of the second amendment to what you say liberals are doing to the first.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You and yours ignore the first part of the sentence, A well regulated militia. In 2008 conservatives have done the same with the second amendment as liberals have done with the first. The difference is - we have jefferson on our side concerning the first. The founding fathers would be shocked to see assault rifles in Target.