Skip to content

What Does Separation of Church & State Really Mean?

The words, “Separation of Church & State” are not in the Bill of Rights or in any other founding document of this country.  It is merely a paraphrase of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights.  Liberal Progressives use the paraphrase of the actual article because it suits their purposes better.  This article will put to bed every argument that says that the “Separation of Church & State” Clause, or properly, the Bill of Rights: Article 1, means no mention or display of “God” in public forums.  If we allow our judges to legislate from the bench, our country will be doomed to failure & tyranny.

There is no Separation of Church & State

In 1791, only 15 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.  Amendment 1 is the clause describing the “Separation of Church & State”.  It is the most abused right in our nation today.  Not because our nation has ever broken it, but because it is consistently misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who wish to destroy religion in America.  Including our judges.

Bill of Rights (1791)
Amendment I

“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.”

There is absolutely nothing in this clause that states that Christianity should be removed from Congress.  Nor does it say that God is not the Ruler of our nation.  Nor does it say that religious statements can’t be made in government or public forums.  It said that Congress make not create a LAW establishing a national religion and that Congress may not restrict anyone’s practice of their religion.  The latest scourge of our time, progressivism, continues to violate this right every day.  They are attempting to deny the right of all people to practice Christianity in congress, in courthouses and  in schools.  If we, the PEOPLE, wish to see ‘God’ on our money, on our Court House, on our Congressional Floor, then we can.  This is our RIGHT.  Further, if Congress prohibits us from doing so, then it is in direct violation of this first Amendment!  We are living in opposite world, here, people.  Claim your right and if necessary, FIGHT for it.

Now, forget those legalities for a minute and observe the actions and statements of our founding fathers for further proof of their intentions when writing that first amendment.

In 1782, The United States Congress printed the first American Bible for the use of soldiers & school chilren:

“The first English Bible printed in this country, as well as the first Bible to
be recommended to the people by the Congress of the United States, was
relatively small in dimensions. It measured but five and five-eighths inches by
three and one-eighth inches. Printed in brevier type on American-made paper, it
contained 726 leaves (1,452 pages). It is considered to be an excellent piece of
printing with remarkably few divided words and with pages unmarred by “rivers”
of blank space.”

The founding document of our nation, The Declaration of Independence, validates the morality of the colonies’ rebellion through the principles of GOD:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..” 

Now, let’s consider the words which fell from their very lips:

John Adams

“I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that
shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under
This Roof!”-John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, November 2, 1800

Ben Franklin

“All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances
of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this
happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future
national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we
imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time,
and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God
governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground
without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise
 without his Aid?”-Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention

Thomas Jefferson

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his
wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his
justice cannot sleep for ever.”-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

James Madison

“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the
Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and
signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”-James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788

Thomas Paine

“But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns
above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain…let
it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be
placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of
monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.”-Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

George Washington

“I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over
which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of
the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government,
to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow
Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who
have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased
to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with
that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the
Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an
humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a
happy Nation.”-George Washington, circular letter of farewell to the Army,
June 8, 1783

’nuff said, People.


  1. Hi,

    I believe you hit the topic right on the spot. There is no such thing as a secular government, because they are made of religious people. Doug Indeap misses what the Founders meant, “the separation of church and state”, in England their was the National Church, a church that got money from the government. What the founders wanted is exactly the opposite as a result they created that part of the First Amendment. But they did not ban schools from practicing a religion, because that is not the government pushing their own religion, with the other option of persecution. So this idea of “separation of church and state” is just a left wing veil to hide the truth.

  2. I’ve read that the ‘separation of church and state’ is a phrase taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he referred to “a wall of separation” in discussing the subject.
    It’s notable that Congress has opened every session from then to now with an invocation by a priest or minister. Ive an unconfirmed impression that latterly, a rabbi may have joined the line. Starting with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. was deliberately founded by a group of classical liberals as a genericallyChristian republic with a government offering no preferences favoring one religion over another. As Rebel rightly says, no state church.
    The language of the Declaration seems to arise from natural law theory, a Christian development.
    The attempts to torture “no preferences” into ‘not tolerance’ are pathetic political propaganda trying to rewrite history.
    Lewis Carroll and George Orwell were prophets: Words now mean whatever politicians want them to mean…

  3. “The GOVERNMENT, through its laws and it’s powers & its legal capacity, may not promote or enforce a religion. And EVERY individual, at ANY time, has the freedom to express themselves- no matter the content: religious or not. No legal judgment has ever challenged this and if it did, I’m sure it would get struck down.”

    You are right to recognize that the First Amendment confirms individuals’ freedom to exercise their religions and constrains governments not to take steps to establish religion. You seem not to recognize, though, the inherent tension between those two provisions–tension that must be resolved in the real world by the courts, case by case. And they have done so just as I have described. I have not, as you have supposed, simply been expressing my opinion. Rather I have been describing the law as expressed and applied by the courts.

    I should add that few, if any, rights and freedoms are absolute, and that goes for the freedom to exercise one’s religion. Public school students, for instance, can exercise and express their religious views in schools–but only in places, times, and ways that do not interfere with school programs and activities. Again, I commend the Wake Forest paper to you; it provides a nice, objective summary. It discusses the limitations that may be placed on free exercise of religion in the workplace, which may vary depending on circumstances, e.g., whether the employer is a governmental or nongovernmental entity, whether the employee is a supervisor, or whether the governmental worker is an elected official or an administrative staffer.

    You speak of the religious views of various founders. While those views are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

    Take care as well in reviewing some of the historical “evidence.” Fakes, exaggerations, and misunderstandings abound. The story that Congress printed the first American Bible for the use of soldiers and school children is a case in point. Congress did not order any Bibles imported or printed as is often claimed. Rather, it merely helped a Colonial printer by passing a resolution stating that, based on its chaplain’s report, it was satisfied that his edition was accurately printed. See C. Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) Chapter One, Congress and the Bible (available free on line).

    In questioning what to make of Madison’s statements and the actions of other founders, you raise the large and complex subject of the founders’ “intent.” While we and courts speak of ascertaining the “intent” of the First Amendment, actually doing so in any precise sense is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is we are speaking of the intent not of a single person or even a single legislative body, but rather of all who participated in drafting and ratifying the Amendment. They were, of course, not all of the same mind. Practicality leads us to seek evidence of this collective intent from those most central to the process who remain most readily accessible to us today, e.g., those in Congress who worked and spoke most on the subject, at least on the record. It is important also to recognize that in some provisions the founders spoke in general, even cryptic terms (as commonly is necessary to achieve political agreement) to establish general principles, well aware that future generations would necessarily determine the full meaning and effect of those principles.

    As one would expect, moreover, the available evidence does not all point in the same direction. For instance, while Washington offered Thanksgiving proclamations, seemingly seeing no problem in that, Jefferson refrained from issuing any such proclamations for the very reason he thought the Constitution precluded it. Madison too preferred not to issue any such proclamations, but upon being requested by Congress to do so, reluctantly issued one, though taking pains to word it so as merely to encourage those so inclined to celebrate the day. He later almost sheepishly acknowledged that had been a mistake. Also, Congress appointed chaplains for the two houses of the legislature and for the army and navy. This evidence can be seen in at least two ways. On one hand, it can be seen, as you seemingly urge, as evidence that the founders considered those actions to conform to the Constitution, thus indicating they did not intend the Constitution to prevent the government from taking actions of that sort with respect to religion. On the other hand, it can be seen, as Madison says and I agree, as simply examples of early mistakes by Congress and the Executive, where they failed to conform to the Constitution. Mistakes of that sort are hardly unexpected or unusual. Recall that Congress made two other similar mistakes during Madison’s presidency, resulting in two vetoes of bills. The government has made many such mistakes during our history, and continues to make them to this day.

    While I think the vast preponderance of evidence reveals the founders intended some measure of separation of religion and government, I recognize that some evidence points the other way. In light of the available evidence, at the very least, it is ridiculous to say things like the principle of separation of church and state is a myth or that the Supreme Court made it up in modern times. Those voicing such ideas either delude themselves or insult the intelligence of their listeners.

    The very fact that evidence can be found on both sides of issues like this is one of the reasons we established courts–we call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court did just that, and did so unanimously.

    • Great post. Have to admit I speed-read it due to time constraints, but I don’t believe you mentioned the Founders’ concerns over a particular Christian denomination becoming a state religion. That was the driving force behind the First Amendment and why Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Contrary to what revisionist historians want us to believe, the Founders were all about Christianity and a strong, God-fearing society. They just didn’t want one Christian denomination weilding power over another Christian denomination.

      • While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from favoring one Christian denomination over others as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The notion that the First Amendment should only prevent government from supporting one sect over another does not square with its language or evidence of the founders’ intent. First, note no mention in the text of “denomination,” “sect,” or the like. Second, note that the word “religion” is uttered once–setting the scope of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If the text is read so that the term “religion” means only a “national denomination” or the like (thus limiting the scope of the establishment clause as you seemingly suppose), violence is done to the free expression clause, which then would merely constrain Congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise “thereof”–i.e., a national denomination. Silly.

        While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects (largely but not exclusively Christian) and some (but hardly all) founders were motivated by that perceived need to support separation of church and state, it is a non sequitur to suppose therefore that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one “sect” (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., “generic” Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such). Any such interpretation, moreover, would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them. For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? Christianity comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism “belongs” in Christianity.

      • doug,

        you continue to simply state your opinion. what you think they intended. your examples do not strike at the heart of the matter. there is inherent ‘tension’ because people continue to attempt the squelshing of religion in politics- but they fail. If you want credibility for your argument, please show me one example of a Supreme Court case where a public servant has been required to limit their religious speech in their public capacities. And the matter was upheld in court. ANYONE may express their religious beliefs at any time, any where. Sorry you don’t like that, but it is true.

      • Well, again, it is not just my “arguments” that “this deed” has been done. It is a “fact” that it has been done–long since and many, many, many times. Check out the Wake Forest paper, which summarizes and documents that fact. The courts (and commentators) have long recognized the inherent tension between the free-exercise and establishment clauses, particularly in cases involving public servants, and have case-by-case endeavored to draw the line between government and individual speech on religion. And just to be sure, that is “fact,” not “opinion” or “argument.” As the witticism goes: You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

      • Doug. Free speech of public servants is being attacked. There is no doubt about it. But they still can and do say anything concerning their religion that they wish. As it should be. We need not repeat our points.

  4. Of course, individuals are not literally the institutions of government. That is not the point. Those governmental institutions act through the actions of agents, who also happen to be individuals. When acting in their official capacities, would you have these individuals act and speak as if for themselves and not the institutions they then represent? For instance, a public school teacher instructing students in class acts not merely as an individual, but rather as an employee and agent of the school (a government institution) and, accordingly, must act in keeping with the laws applicable to that government institution–including the First Amendment establishment clause (applied to state institutions under the 14th Amendment). A government cannot hire a bunch of individuals and turn them loose to promote this or that religion and then, when taken to task, pretend that its employees and agents are wild renegades acting not for it but for themselves.

    As for how the founders wanted the Constitution applied, perhaps you should read what Madison said in his Detached Memoranda, which I quoted earlier. He said it plain and simple–and would have none of this silliness about individuals are individuals and nothing more and that’s all there is to it.

    • Doug, this is your opinion. The fact remains- there is no such thing as separation of church & state. there is nothing in law that says that people’s rights of free speech & religious freedom end at work if they are public servants. Yes, teachers must obey the law, but there is no such law restricting their freedom of speech & religion. That would require a change to the constitution. As for Madison, who cares? His opinion in one paper makes no difference. As for teachers, etc, promoting their religion- that is not the same as PRACTICING their own. There is a clean difference.

      The game is up. You lose.

      • “The game is up. You lose.” What happened to seeking the truth, rather than being “right” or “winning”?

        You focus much on semantics and attach some importance, it seems, to labeling things “fact” or “opinion.” I’ll try this in your terms.

        It is a “fact” that Madison, the founder who perhaps more than any other influenced the drafting of both the Constitution and First Amendment, stated that he understood them to establish the principle of separation of religion and government and, further, it is a “fact” that he applied that principle in vetoing three bills. It is a “fact” thus that the principle has existed and shaped our constitutional history from the outset. While the courts have elaborated on that principle over the years in the many cases that have come before them (particularly after the 14th Amendment was adopted), they plainly did not invent the principle themselves–notwithstanding the ill-informed or ideologically motivated “opinions” of some commentators to the contrary. Nor can that principle be passed off as the doing of some faction of the Supreme Court. In Everson v. Board of Education, for instance, the 1947 decision commonly regarded as central to the Court’s jurisprudence on this point, it is a “fact” that the justices were unanimous–nine zip–in confirming that the Constitution calls for separation of church and state and further that it applies that principle to state governments. The justices split 5-4 only in their views whether that principle applied in the circumstances of that case to preclude a state from funding the transportation of students to parochial schools.

        It is a “fact” that you said “you only need look at how the founding fathers, who wrote the dog gone law, wanted it to be applied” and, after I quoted Madison explaining what he understood the dog gone law he wrote means, you replied: “As for Madison, who cares? His opinion in one paper makes no difference.” It is my “opinion” that those two statements are, in large measure, inconsistent.

        It is a “fact” that, as Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803, we look to the courts to decide what the law is, including the law of the Constitution and, further, it is a “fact” that the courts have decided that the Constitution establishes a principle they have labeled with the catchy phrase “separation of church and state.” (They could have used any of a number of descriptive labels to describe the principle.) It is a “fact” thus that the principle of separation of church and state exists in constitutional law and is the law of the land–notwithstanding the “opinions” of some commentators that it should not be so.

        From my reading of a small sample of your writing, I have the “opinion” that you tend to express yourself forcefully–and you do so pretty much always, both before and after researching and analyzing, and before and after changing your mind. I appreciate your zeal, even as I disagree with much of what you say.

      • Doug, I wrote that in frustration. Of course being ‘right’ is not the point. Finding the truth is always the point. I see and read what you write. But it does not ‘prove’ anything other than what Madison, one guy, felt. The fact is, you must look at the law. Also, the practice of the founding fathers. Not what they opined in letters, etc. They DID pray and they DID print a bible and they DID evoke God in their public capacities. There is no denying that fact. And it must also follow that if they did these things, then you are saying they were violating the Bill of Rights they just established. Is that logical to conclude?

        These guys argued a lot about a lot of things. I have no doubt that Madison said the things you said he did. When I said, “Who cares?”, it is because he obviously either didn’t mean what you purport him to mean (since he signed the Bill, knowing what his colleagues were doing (ie, praying & evoking God’s name and printing the first American Bible) or he was simply outvoted. Is there another option?

        The Bill of Rights, Article One, was very clear. The GOVERNMENT, through its laws and it’s powers & its legal capacity, may not promote or enforce a religion. And EVERY individual, at ANY time, has the freedom to express themselves- no matter the content: religious or not. No legal judgment has ever challenged this and if it did, I’m sure it would get struck down. That is, if the Supreme Court remains true to its purpose.

        As to the legal precedents you mentioned. Again, just because they used the paraphrase, it does not mean that they restricted a person’s right to freedom of speech (religious or not) within their public capacity.

        Your comment only serves to prove what I said: the separation of church & state is merely a ‘catchy phrase’ that could have been worded any number of ways. And that they point, directly, to Article 1 of the Bill of Rights. In none of the judgments you mentioned is the personal right of free speech, (in this case religious free speech) limited.

        So, forgive me if I state my point forcefully. That is exactly my intent. This country is going down the drains. Someone, everyone, needs to stand up and FORCEFULLY say, “No more!” I have researched and indeed, have done my homework, Doug. I have thought about this for many years. That is why I can and do, prove my points.

        Now, your turn to answer my questions.

  5. Short Little Rebel

    I don’t know how you do it? Your answers to the “the word of me” were quite appropriate.

  6. The principle of separation of church and state is derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    It is important to distinguish between the “public sphere” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public sphere–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties, they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please.

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you.

    • While I can appreciate your education on the subject, I don’t think that you have addressed or proved to any extent, other than your own personal opinion, that individuals in public office may not exercise their religious freedom while at work. There is no such thing and it actually VIOLATES their 1st Amendment rights completely. The founding fathers clearly believed this as they prayed and called on God on a daily basis WHILE IN CONGRESS.

      The individuals in Congress are NOT the Congress anymore than the individuals in a corporation are the corporation. The Congress & the corporation are legal entities on their own merits under the law. No individual can BE that entity. That is the road to tyranny.

      The ‘separation of church & state’ is nothing but a paraphrase- it is not the law.

      People would love to deny this very true fact, but they may not. It is too detrimental to the freedoms of every American. We the People, have the right to say WHATEVER we want, WHERE EVER we want. People can burn flags and hurl disgusting statements at dead soldiers’ funerals. That is America. Deal with it.

      • Students of the Constitution have long recognized the inherent tension between the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. One guarantees each individual freedom to exercise his or her religion; the other constrains the government from taking steps to establish religion. As government can only act through the words and actions of those comprising its ranks, how would you constrain the government if you allow every person–even when acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government–to speak and act in promotion (or opposition) of religion?

        Pretending to resolve the issue simply by focusing on the free exercise of religion and ignoring the constraint against establishment of religion won’t do. That is America. Deal with it.

      • Doug. Wrong. The government is NOT the individuals. It is the Congress- the Senate, the House, the Executive Office & the Courts. These are legal entities. THEY are the government. I am not ignoring the constraints set on the government at all. How do figure that? As I said before, they are legal entities- or legal ‘persons’- just like a corporation is. A legal entity has rights and must also obey the laws. It can be punished and can pay fees. It can thrive and grow, etc.

        The Congress may not force people to obey any religion. That is all, Doug. They may not make laws that accomplish this mission. As I said, you only need look at how the founding fathers, who wrote the dog gone law, wanted it to be applied. THEY, personally and many times, called on GOD while in session, espousing GOD’s wonder & righteousness. Not only that, they produced the first Bible AND prayed before session.

        It is YOU who needs to deal with the facts, Doug.

  7. You write:
    “My rules are simple: no disrepect allowed. Contrary opinions do not quality as disrespect. Opinions that make other people angry do not count as disrespect. Opinions on race do not count as disrespect. Opinions on gender, sexual orientation do not count as disrespect. I want this to be a taboo free environment where people can finally air their differences- in a respectful way.”

    Oh where Oh where have I strayed…my honorable leader? 🙂

    Can we air our differences on this forum or must we follow and agree with the the party line? Just asking…

    • I guess asking whether or not I believe in magic & witches in response to showing you the founding documents of this country qualify as ‘respectful’ diaglog to you.

      Liberals are so busy spewing contempt that they actually think it’s normal. You can’t even see your own rudeness. Amazing.

      Now, Word of me, you are warned. I will most certainly engage in a dialog where you don’t agree with me. But I WILL NOT waste my time on someone who acts rude, then plays the victim for being called out on it. Further, if you make outlandish assertions, you need to back them with some actual proof or with some pretty good critical reasoning (For example: If A=B and B=C, then A=C). I want links to authentic documents. I want links and quotes from the people you accuse in your outlandish assertions. I want you or any other crazy liberal who makes statements that are so absurb as to border on funny to prove themselves.

      I hold myself to these standards and can and do back up my assertions with actual fact & solid critical reasoning analysis.

      This is your warning. This is a blog for intellectual thinkers. Not a place where liberals can come and spew their abuse.

  8. Hi again Rebel, thanks for answering my reply.

    I want you to understand that I am writing to you in the spirit of debate and exchanging thoughts and ideas and I am not trying to be insulting….honest.

    I only wrote this because there are really people in the evangelical fundamentalist religions that absolutely want the things I listed above…they are called “Dominionist.” They seem rife in the Republican Party; in fact many say they control it. I also know that there are religious think tanks and associations that are spreading this evil viewpoint all over America.

    They seem to run for local school boards and small city government’s positions a lot and get their people in positions of power and in areas that have influence over politicians and what schools teach. Ol’ G.W. Bush was one of theirs; Barbara Bachmann (R) or (tea party) is one, Sarah Palin is one…Mike Huckabee is one, but he dropped out.

    The Dominionist stated ultimate goal is to place America under Biblical law. Dominionist followers will answer yes to all of those questions

    Are you one of those?

    • hmmm… asking if I believe in magic is ‘in the spirit of debate? I have NEVER heard of a single Christian- not one, mind you, that wants the things you mentioned.

      The rule you broke was the carping rule. Also the disprespect rule. Sorry.

      “If you deemed to be simply carping from the sidelines, you are banned.”

      You don’t get to carp and make no sense. Your post asked ridiculous and insulting questions which basically equate religious people to complete idiots. That is not in the spirit of debate.

      I have no idea who these Dominionists are. Never heard of ’em. You seriously need to prove that Bush, Bachmann, Huckabee are that stupid. truly. Please also name a Christian you know who wants those things.

      Can’t take you seriously until then.

  9. Hey Shortie
    Do you subscribe to Hillsdale college newsletter. They are big on the constitution and take NO GOVERNMENT MONEY. Check it out if you don’t already subscribe. YOU NEED TO BE IN POLITICS!

    Blessings on you and yours

  10. In light of the recent spewing of lies by the NYC Atheists over the “Seven in Heaven Way” street sign dedicated to the seven fallen firefighters from that ladder company on 9/11, they responded as such: “The attacks on 9/11 were an attack on America. They were an attack on our Constitution and breaking that Constitution to honor these firefighters is the wrong thing to do. “The patriotic and right thing to do is to obey our own law and to realize that we are a diverse nation, a melting pot full of different views.”

    My response to them was simple:
    Breaking the Constitution? Let’s make sure we are clear here. First off, the Constitution says NOTHING regarding the “Separation of Church and State”. The Constitution was designed to protect the Church from the State, NOT the State from the Church. This is why when people bring up the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, the argument turns comical. First, this is the same Jefferson who did NOT write the Constitution, he wrote the Declaration of Independence. This is the same Jefferson who helped usher prayer into Congress and he, himself, regularly attended Church services .. where were they at? In congress! As well, the Federal Constitution was NEVER supposed to be the regulator of the citizen’s spiritual preferences. It was only designed not to impose a national religion. The state level constitutions were the ones that were supposed to delve more into the right to worship as one chooses.

    The fact that organizations such as yours and the ACLU have diluted the meaning of the Constitution is shameful. I am attaching a document that proves that there was never an intention from the founding fathers for the Constitution to be abused the way it has been with such wording as “Separation of Church and State”. In all honesty, why it was attempted to be interpreted rather than enforced is still a mystery. Disputes such as this one over a simple street sign prove that you don’t understand the principles behind this timeless document, nor do you even understand the history behind the Danbury Baptists letter either.

    Thank you for your views on this along with some more great quotes from great patriots of this country.

    • No problem, Dallas. We bloggers need to educate our public (who has become too pre-occupied in dual income households) to pay attention to the fact that our young are not being taught about the founding documents of this nation. We need to blog about this over and over again.

      I, myself, through the research I have been doing for this blog (it’s fairly new- less than two months old), have learned so much about those documents. It truly amazed me to see that the words, “Separation of Church and State” are never mentioned in them at all. In fact, that phrase is used to REPLACE article 1! The modern implementation of this phrase is actually in deep violation to what was ever intended. Crazy.

      • What would you have the people of this country do about religion vs secularity.

        Are you one of the people that want Old Testament laws to prevail in America?
        Do you want the churches make the civil laws like the Orthodox church did in the Dark Ages?
        Do you want to take away the right of women to control their own body?
        Do you want to take away our right to free speech? (blasphemy, heresy)
        Do you want to make fornication, adultery, masturbation, and homosexuality illegal?
        Do you want to make the teaching of science to our children illegal?
        Do you want to make the teaching of the fact of evolution illegal?
        Do you think there are witches, demons, angels, spirits, and a Satan roaming the earth?
        Do you think people can be possessed by “evil” spirits?
        Do you think its alright to kill people/children if God tells you to?
        Do you think we are in the “end times”?
        Do you “talk” to Jesus?
        Do you believe in magic?
        Do you think “non-believers” are evil and should not be citizens of America or have any human rights?
        Should everyone in America be Christian only believers?

        I’m really curious…

%d bloggers like this: