Is this what our founding Fathers..

had in mind when they said "separation of church and state?"

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Be careful, you are using Worldnetdaily... Romantico will scream sayin you are propagandizing.

Just to play devils-advocate (no pun intended)� What if this woman was wearing a pentagram around her neck and refused to take it off.

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Just to play devils-advocate (no pun intended)� What if this woman was wearing a pentagram around her neck and refused to take it off.

..and not just any pentagram, but a Satanist pentagram.

This nation wasn't based upon a Satanic book. Or any other religion, for that matter. It was based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs. There is no doubt of that in my mind. There'd be no establishment of religion in respect to the government recognizing any particular sect (that meant denomination back then) over the other. That would have meant certain civil war. Recall what was one of the most driving forces in new colonies and states?

They didn't mean that you had to be a Christian. There is no way a government can force a person to make such a personal decision. Those ethics, morals and principles were the ones we as a society were expected to follow. Franklin even said that is the only way this "experiment in society" would suceed.

No violation of the constitution occured. Not in regards to her wearing a cross. There are other things about public education that causes a constitutionalist to raise an eybrow.

Here's the deal. If we were still a republic, and if each state was able to be governed by the people of the state, and if the feds were to stop enforcing bullcrap across the board, all'd be fair. Everyone would be able to migrate to their own state, just as it happened in the early days.

What was really intended was that the USA would not form a national church which would be supported by taxes such as the Church of England. This was one the things that really irked the Founding Fathers: That some of the tax money collected by the English government went to support a national church (be like Lutherans being forced to contribute to a Baptist church - note I am not knocking any denomination, but using as an example to show how it pi**ed them off.)

This is also true, and can be found in reading there writing. On the same note, it can be shown that the government did dabble in spreading the gospel to the savage (natives), and that Tom Jefferson was in favor of this. Who's sect was the one used, or I wonder did they make it just the basics on which all would agree?
Hard to imagine, Americans agreeing.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Here's a nice quote from Jefferson.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


Jefferson and many of our other founding fathers were deists and freemasons..........

That is but one of many quotes from the ol' boy, many of which I have posted here on a few occasions, that make it clear that what he was saying is not what some make it out to say today. A sentence maketh not a clear picture of a man's mind.

Speaking of clear pictures, the Ny-Quill is taking effect. Crawling to bed. Good niiiiifghjk......

Ah, but the point is "freedom of religion" and "freedom from state-enforced religion."

Now, I submit that on every Christian site I'm a member of, nobody gets bent out of shape about infringements like that against other religions. The minute it happens to something Christian, they scream about infringing on religous rights.

And this, in a country where many Pagans still get verbal abuse (or things thrown at them... happened to a friend just 2 years ago) for wearing symbols of their faith.

Byrd, so telling a teacher she can't wear a cross around her neck, but letting a Muslim wear a burka that fully hides her face for a DRIVER'S LICENSE PHOTO! Is "freedom of Religion"?

No, it's called "Liberal Bull$hit" and it is the gradual push away from a Christian America.

Not so much of "anti-Christianism" but because it is one of the last unifying factors between most Americans, it used to be we were Americans.

Now we're "blacks" "mexicans" indians" "Christians" "muslims" and why? Because this "diversity" will weaken us to the point where the Government will be all that holds us together.

No different then Communism.

Originally posted by ELSFAW
Byrd, so telling a teacher she can't wear a cross around her neck, but letting a Muslim wear a burka that fully hides her face for a DRIVER'S LICENSE PHOTO! Is "freedom of Religion"?

No, it's called "Liberal Bull$hit" and it is the gradual push away from a Christian America.

Not so much of "anti-Christianism" but because it is one of the last unifying factors between most Americans, it used to be we were Americans.

Now we're "blacks" "mexicans" indians" "Christians" "muslims" and why? Because this "diversity" will weaken us to the point where the Government will be all that holds us together.

No different then Communism.

Exactly Elsfaw, you at least have opened your eyes. Now if we can get the rest of the world to do the same.