First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision to separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a state religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc. Jimcomma, use your brain for some self examination and reasoning. Do not go along with whatever liberal sound bite of the day you find comforting.
"Jim," <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8hN8e.2994$mG3.2316@twister.nyroc.rr.com...>
"...our founding fathers had the superior vision to separate church and > state. It is a fundamental principle that has allowed our great, diverse > nation to grow and flourish peacefully. blurring the line between church > and state erodes our constitution, and our democracy. it is a blatant > abuse of power. participating in something designed to incite divisiveness > and encourage contention is unacceptable. I would hope that sen. Frist > will rise above something so beyond the pale.>
--Senator Harry Reid (D-NV, trying to reason with a foaming, rabid dog
First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision to > separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a state > religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the Declaration of > Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc. Jimcomma, use your > brain for some self examination and reasoning. Do not go along with > whatever liberal sound bite of the day you find comforting.>
"Jim," <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:8hN8e.2994$mG3.2316@twister.nyroc.rr.com...>
"...our founding fathers had the superior vision to separate church and >>state. It is a fundamental principle that has allowed our great, diverse >>nation to grow and flourish peacefully. blurring the line between church >>and state erodes our constitution, and our democracy. it is a blatant >>abuse of power. participating in something designed to incite divisiveness >>and encourage contention is unacceptable. I would hope that sen. Frist >>will rise above something so beyond the pale.”>>
--Senator Harry Reid (D-NV, trying to reason with a foaming, rabid dog >
Sorry about the OT -- it's my failing memory, BUT OTOH, YOU found it interesting enough to read and respond.
First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision to > separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a state > religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the Declaration of > Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc. Jimcomma, use your > brain for some self examination and reasoning. Do not go along with > whatever liberal sound bite of the day you find comforting.>
"Jim," <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:8hN8e.2994$mG3.2316@twister.nyroc.rr.com...>
"...our founding fathers had the superior vision to separate church and >>state. It is a fundamental principle that has allowed our great, diverse >>nation to grow and flourish peacefully. blurring the line between church >>and state erodes our constitution, and our democracy. it is a blatant >>abuse of power. participating in something designed to incite divisiveness >>and encourage contention is unacceptable. I would hope that sen. Frist >>will rise above something so beyond the pale.”>>
--Senator Harry Reid (D-NV, trying to reason with a foaming, rabid dog >
Sorry about the OT -- it's my failing memory, BUT OTOH, YOU found it interesting enough to read and respond.
"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:U7R8e.80062$f%4.16101@bignews1.bellsouth.net...> Bill McKee wrote:>> First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision >> to separate religion and state?>
In the Constitution.>
Where in the constitution does it state there will be no religion practiced in America? Where does it say government will not refer to God in any way? Explain the amendment you cite.
<gould0738@aol.com> wrote in message news:1113842824.838028.322430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> And where does it say they had a vision to> separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a> state> religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the> Declaration of> Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc.>
*************>
They mention God, not "church" in the Declaration.> There is an opening prayer each day when Congress convenes. The prayers> are offered by a variety of Christian clerics, as well as Jewish,> Muslim, Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.> I'm not sure the Wiccans have been given an opportunity yet......>
One of the funniest trends of modern times has been the outcry from the> Fundie Right to reexamine our long tradition of separating church and> state.> The arguments about the use of "God" in the declaration, etc, are> factually correct, but one has to wonder what inspires the Fundies to> believe that if God were present in government it would have to be> through the vehicle of a specific branch of a specific (conservative> Christian) faith?>
I listened to a guy on right wing radio wailing on and on about how> churches should be allowed to financially support and/or actively> campaign for certain individuals or issues. Somebody asked, "What about> the members of a church who might prefer the other candidate?" The> answer was rather revealing, "If they aren't willing to go along with> the official political position of their church, they should go and> worship somewhere else."> Gotcha. I think that's why the founders realized that both religion and> government would be better off if they weren't officially in bed> together.>
But the people attacking religion and the state, attack any mention of God by the government. They have confused God and religion according to your argument.
"Bill McKee" <bmckeespam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:C%S8e.11760$44.5124@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message > news:U7R8e.80062$f%4.16101@bignews1.bellsouth.net...>> Bill McKee wrote:>>> First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision >>> to separate religion and state?>>
In the Constitution.>>
Where in the constitution does it state there will be no religion > practiced in America? Where does it say government will not refer to God > in any way? Explain the amendment you cite.>
"Bill McKee" <bmckeespam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:w1T8e.11761$44.9236@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
<gould0738@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1113842824.838028.322430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>> And where does it say they had a vision to>> separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a>> state>> religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the>> Declaration of>> Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc.>>
*************>>
They mention God, not "church" in the Declaration.>> There is an opening prayer each day when Congress convenes. The prayers>> are offered by a variety of Christian clerics, as well as Jewish,>> Muslim, Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.>> I'm not sure the Wiccans have been given an opportunity yet......>>
One of the funniest trends of modern times has been the outcry from the>> Fundie Right to reexamine our long tradition of separating church and>> state.>> The arguments about the use of "God" in the declaration, etc, are>> factually correct, but one has to wonder what inspires the Fundies to>> believe that if God were present in government it would have to be>> through the vehicle of a specific branch of a specific (conservative>> Christian) faith?>>
I listened to a guy on right wing radio wailing on and on about how>> churches should be allowed to financially support and/or actively>> campaign for certain individuals or issues. Somebody asked, "What about>> the members of a church who might prefer the other candidate?" The>> answer was rather revealing, "If they aren't willing to go along with>> the official political position of their church, they should go and>> worship somewhere else.">> Gotcha. I think that's why the founders realized that both religion and>> government would be better off if they weren't officially in bed>> together.>>
But the people attacking religion and the state, attack any mention of God > by the government. They have confused God and religion according to your > argument.
Hell, he's confused over the meaning of "long tradition"
"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:_cT8e.80598$f%4.45363@bignews1.bellsouth.net...>>>>First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision >>>>to separate religion and state?>>>
In the Constitution.>>>
Bill McKee wrote:>> Where in the constitution does it state there will be no religion >> practiced in America?>
Do you comprehend the difference between "practicing religion" and the > state imposing a religion? Or having the state favor one religion over > another?>
... Where does it say government will not refer to God in any way?>
???> Where did I say that the gov't can not (or even should not) refer to God > "in any way?">
There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no mention of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.
There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no mention >of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are >citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.
==========================================
OK, so we decide that religious icons, etc. are OK in public (governmental) areas. Which religions will be given official sanction? That's where the constitutional issue comes into play. The religious have this unfortunate habit of assuming that THEIR religion is the only one worth recognizing.
"Wayne.B" <waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uq9a61th0f1tfrf2sja4cunlnu17r0rf3o@4ax.com...> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:57:32 GMT, "Bill McKee"> <bmckeespam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>
There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no >>mention>>of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are>>citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.>
==========================================>
OK, so we decide that religious icons, etc. are OK in public> (governmental) areas. Which religions will be given official> sanction? That's where the constitutional issue comes into play. The> religious have this unfortunate habit of assuming that THEIR religion> is the only one worth recognizing.>
Let any religion figure they are the chosen one. Government lets all display as long as they do it with no government cost other than police protection from those others that think htey are the chosen.
