Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct in saying that there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. In fact the constitution says that the governments role in religion is to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The seperation of church and state idea originated from a letter written by thomas jefferson in 1802

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared (Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799):

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."


All of this can be easily verified at your local library and possibly on the internet....if people can't find links to anything above that they dont believe me on just tell me and i'll go find one for you.

 

[Immanuel]

No disagreement with me in regards to this except maybe the graduation prayer. It would depend on the school and the make up of both the student body and the text of the prayer IMHO. In general, I don't have a problem with a short prayer of thanks, but when it turns to an obvious attempt at proselytizing, I have a problem with that.

When I graduated, no invocation was offered. My family (literally) gathered in the cafeteria where the graduates were getting ready for the processional, stood around me, put their hands on me, and blessed me.

Which do you think is more meaningful? A watered down benediction? Or a family blessing?

In my opinion, parents have acceded a lot of their responsibilities to the school, on every level. Christian parents have stopped taking responsibility for their children's spiritual lives.

I work on prevention/intervention initiatives. When it comes to kids, what matters with that child is the home that they live in 24/7, the neighborhood, the school they attend daily, and their peers. A single, one-time prevention message has zero effectiveness.

A lot of time, communities with a serious violence problem do very superficial and ineffective things, like holding a large public march, while ignoring the daily circumstances of children's lives. Do you really think that a single march is going to affect a child who spends 24/7 in a disordered home, violent neighborhood, failing school, and with delinquent peers? Of course not.

Same holds true with prayer. Want your children to pray? Then kneel your ass down beside their bed each night and show them how it's done.

A single, one-shot prayer in a graduation ceremony is not going to inculcate your child with anything. It's nothing more than an empty gesture.

If people spent the time and energy they spend pushing public prayer on teaching their children spiritually, this country would be a whole lot better off, but it's easier to do a one-shot than to live your faith every single day before your children's eyes.

As for what we have in this country today, I would agree with you; however, that does not mean both sides, atheists and Religious Right, do not attempt to change society to fit their whims. Who's to say what the future holds for us should someone like Pat Robertson win a Presidential election?

The biggest impact a president would have is with political appointees and judges. My hope for this country is that we regain our sanity....soon.

Where did I state that I expected a single prayer to have any effect on students? Where did I say that I wanted such an outcome?

I hope the same thing, but am not expecting any miracles.

Immie

 

[catzmeow]

Where did I state that I expected a single prayer to have any effect on students? Where did I say that I wanted such an outcome?

Then what is the point of public prayers in school, if it is unlikely to have any impact on the students' spiritual well-being? Think about it. Get back to me.

 

[CryingKoala]

All of this can be easily verified at your local library and possibly on the internet....if people can't find links to anything above that they dont believe me on just tell me and i'll go find one for you.

Except you are probably quoting internet sources of dubious scholarship.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

The term nor its meaning did not originate with Jefferson at all. He just popularized it.
From 1639 forward... [Roger] Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." This idea might have been one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution, (although the language used by the founders is quite different) and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Years later, in 1802 Thomas Jefferson, writing of the "wall of separation" echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was considered inclusive back in the 18th Century wouldn't fly today. The references to "Christian Principles" must be rooted historically at a time when the country was overwhelmingly Protestant and those sectarian differences the Establishment Clause was written to avoid were of different Protestant sects. We are in a more religiously diverse nation now and that does not fly. Using it as an example to show the acceptability of modern Fundamentalist Christian dogma concerning political power is misleading at best. Dishonest at worst.

 

[catzmeow]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, enacted during Jefferson's presidency as an official document, in 1797....

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You are correct in saying that there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. In fact the constitution says that the governments role in religion is to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The seperation of church and state idea originated from a letter written by thomas jefferson in 1802

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared (Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799):

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

All of this can be easily verified at your local library and possibly on the internet....if people can't find links to anything above that they dont believe me on just tell me and i'll go find one for you.

Except you are probably quoting internet sources of dubious scholarship.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

The term nor its meaning did not originate with Jefferson at all. He just popularized it.
From 1639 forward... [Roger] Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." This idea might have been one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution, (although the language used by the founders is quite different) and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Years later, in 1802 Thomas Jefferson, writing of the "wall of separation" echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was considered inclusive back in the 18th Century wouldn't fly today. The references to "Christian Principles" must be rooted historically at a time when the country was overwhelmingly Protestant and those sectarian differences the Establishment Clause was written to avoid were of different Protestant sects. We are in a more religiously diverse nation now and that does not fly. Using it as an example to show the acceptability of modern Fundamentalist Christian dogma concerning political power is misleading at best. Dishonest at worst.

Its actually something that both I and David Barton got from Bill McCarthy. The information is neither misleading nor dishonest but is in fact the accurate truth and history of the origins of the concept of "The seperation of church and state"

Please disprove anything specific I put forward or ask me for more information if you dont think something I said was accurate.

Your response, thus far, does not address any of the factual historic information from my post above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The heresies of the far Christian right, much of it based in southern triumphalism from the 19th and early 20th century will not be permitted by the rest of the country. The country has changed dramatically in religious taste since then, the far Christian right makes up less than 15% of the electorate, which will be in no mood for Perry and his social values agenda. Hopefully, he will get the message and drop it for good once he gets past the nomination.

 

[catzmeow]

Its actually something that both I and David Barton got from Bill McCarthy. The information is neither misleading nor dishonest but is in fact the accurate truth and history of the origins of the concept of "The seperation of church and state"

Please disprove anything specific I put forward or ask me for more information if you dont think something I said was accurate.

Your response, thus far, does not address any of the factual historic information from my post above.

Do you consider it to be intellectually ethical to misrepresent someone else's words as your own (aka plagiarism)?

It took me a minute on google to ascertain that you'd plagiarized Fr. McCarthy's article here:

http://www.myfathershouse.com/pdf/S...nd_State-not-separation-of-God-from-state.pdf

You make baby Jesus cry with your shoddy scholarship and lack of ethics, Plymco.

 

[Immanuel]

Where did I state that I expected a single prayer to have any effect on students? Where did I say that I wanted such an outcome?

Then what is the point of public prayers in school, if it is unlikely to have any impact on the students' spiritual well-being? Think about it. Get back to me.

A prayer of thanks given by a valedictorian are nothing more than that... a prayer of thanksgiving.

Immie

 

[catzmeow]

A prayer of thanks given by a valedictorian are nothing more than that... a prayer of thanksgiving.

Immie

Okay. What do you hope this prayer to accomplish that would not be accomplished by individual students praying with each other or family members?

 

[Truthmatters]

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"

The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[14][15] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[16] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

 

[geauxtohell]

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to have semi-automatic weapons isn't specifically stated in the constitution either. But it's implied under the second amendment.

The freedom's given to men in the Bill of Rights weren't universal for blacks until 1863, that doesn't invalidate the Bill of Rights.

Another "true constitutionalist" weighs in.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You are correct in saying that there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. In fact the constitution says that the governments role in religion is to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The seperation of church and state idea originated from a letter written by thomas jefferson in 1802

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared (Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799):

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

All of this can be easily verified at your local library and possibly on the internet....if people can't find links to anything above that they dont believe me on just tell me and i'll go find one for you.

Except you are probably quoting internet sources of dubious scholarship.
David Barton: master of myth and misinformation

The term nor its meaning did not originate with Jefferson at all. He just popularized it.
From 1639 forward... [Roger] Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." This idea might have been one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution, (although the language used by the founders is quite different) and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Years later, in 1802 Thomas Jefferson, writing of the "wall of separation" echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was considered inclusive back in the 18th Century wouldn't fly today. The references to "Christian Principles" must be rooted historically at a time when the country was overwhelmingly Protestant and those sectarian differences the Establishment Clause was written to avoid were of different Protestant sects. We are in a more religiously diverse nation now and that does not fly. Using it as an example to show the acceptability of modern Fundamentalist Christian dogma concerning political power is misleading at best. Dishonest at worst.

Its actually something that both I and David Barton got from Bill McCarthy. The information is neither misleading nor dishonest but is in fact the accurate truth and history of the origins of the concept of "The seperation of church and state"

Please disprove anything specific I put forward or ask me for more information if you dont think something I said was accurate.

Your response, thus far, does not address any of the factual historic information from my post above.

Its actually something that both I and David Barton got from Bill McCarthy. The information is neither misleading nor dishonest but is in fact the accurate truth and history of the origins of the concept of "The seperation of church and state"

Please disprove anything specific I put forward or ask me for more information if you dont think something I said was accurate.

Your response, thus far, does not address any of the factual historic information from my post above.

Do you consider it to be intellectually ethical to misrepresent someone else's words as your own (aka plagiarism)?

It took me a minute on google to ascertain that you'd plagiarized Fr. McCarthy's article here:

http://www.myfathershouse.com/pdf/S...nd_State-not-separation-of-God-from-state.pdf

You make baby Jesus cry with your shoddy scholarship and lack of ethics, Plymco.

look real close at the post, really really close...there may be a link hidden in there somewhere for you.

Its very telling that you would choose to focus on this instead of the content of the post itself....that means you know Im right as you have nothing legitimate to come back at me with (yet anyway) to disprove the information provided.

And I requoted myself so people would have context as you like to EDIT YOUR QUOTES of people which is a violation of the TOS here .

 

[Immanuel]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, enacted during Jefferson's presidency as an official document, in 1797....

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Adams Quotes - Quotes from John Adams

"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." ( John Adams upon moving into the White House)

On August 28, 1811 John Adams wrote:

Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.

cite: America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer pg 12

It seems that the founding fathers were not in full agreement.

Then again, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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 of 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 forever.

cite: America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer pg 323

Immie

 

[catzmeow]

Its very telling that you would choose to focus on this instead of the content of the post itself....that means you know Im right as you have nothing legitimate to come back at me with (yet anyway) to disprove the information provided.

I find that people who substitute other people's words for their own without honestly citing them as a source (i.e., plagiarists like you) generally do not have the sort of intellect and educational background that leads to a capacity for identifying, reviewing, assimilating, and reporting from academically rigorous and unbiased sources. What is Father McCarthy's scholastic background that his opinion on this subject should be given such weight? Is he a constitutional scholar? Noted historian? Thomas Jefferson specialist?

Opinions are like assholes. In your case, you've borrowed, in an unhealthy way, someone else's smelly, unsubstantiated asshole, and represented it as your own. In light of that, I deem you an ethically-challenged intellectulal lightweight whose views have little or no credibility.

 

[CryingKoala]

Please disprove anything specific I put forward or ask me for more information if you dont think something I said was accurate.

Your response, thus far, does not address any of the factual historic information from my post above.

What part of the reference to Roger Williams [founder of the Rhode Island Colony] in the 17th Century talking about the wall of separation to describe the relationship between the church and state did you not get?

I guess ignoring a fact which has been posted over and over again here is much easier than confronting one's own mendacity.

---
I will do you one better. We also have William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania created within that colony's charter the first recorded declaration of the separation of church and state within a legal framework.

freedomforum.org: William Penn's 'radical' document marks 300th anniversary

Penn even wrote a treatise on the subject in the 17th Century as the separation of Church and State was a deeply held religious belief among Anabaptists (Quakers)
Where did Separation of Church and State Originate?

There we have it a historical fact that the concept of separation of church and state is much much older than Jefferson and even the United States itself.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its very telling that you would choose to focus on this instead of the content of the post itself....that means you know Im right as you have nothing legitimate to come back at me with (yet anyway) to disprove the information provided.

I find that people who substitute other people's words for their own without honestly citing them as a source generally do not have the sort of educational background that leads to a capacity for identifying, reviewing, assimilating, and reporting from academically rigorous and unbiased sources. What is Father McCarthy's scholastic background that his opinion on this subject should be given such weight? Is he a constitutional scholar? Noted historian? Thomas Jefferson specialist?

Opinions are like assholes. In your case, you've borrowed, in an unhealthy way, someone else's smelly, unsubstantiated asshole, and represented it as your own. In light of that, I deem you an ethically-challenged intellectulal lightweight whose views have little or no credibility.

1) There is a link to the article where The information came from, its in each post that I quoted of myself too.

2) Again, upon reviewing the evidence itself (reading the letters, the case findings, the congressional debate records, the federalist papers) I have the same conclusion.

Stop propping up this "plagerism" strawman and adress the FACTS if you can.

I still dont think you can as you keep resorting to personal attacks through strawmen and avoiding any direct confrontation of the information I provided.

With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth

No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to

The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct in saying that there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. In fact the constitution says that the governments role in religion is to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The seperation of church and state idea originated from a letter written by thomas jefferson in 1802

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared (Runkel v. Winemiller case of 1799):

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."


All of this can be easily verified at your local library and possibly on the internet....if people can't find links to anything above that they dont believe me on just tell me and i'll go find one for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's get some things correct here.

Roger Williams, Separatist
Anne Williams, Antinomian
Thomas Paine, deist
Thomas Jefferson, deist
Ethan Allen, deist
Ben Franklin, polytheist
George Washington, minimal Christian, would not take communion
John Adams, unitarian
James Madison, weak Christian, strong defender of the division of church and state

The world of Christianity as Perry understands it all began with southern triumphalism of the 2d Great Awakening and continued until after the Civil War. Some of the evangelical theology remains weak, while some of it is heresy, meaning in error. The rest of the great majority of Christian Americans have no desire to have a country run along evangelincal/fundamentalist lines.

Tis what tis.

 

[Truthmatters]

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman


To the House of Representatives of the United States:



Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:



Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.



Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133; The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:176-177]

 

[catzmeow]

Stop propping up this "plagerism" strawman and adress the FACTS if you can.

I still dont think you can as you keep resorting to personal attacks through strawmen and avoiding any direct confrontation of the information I provided.

1. You're a plagiarist. You've posted other people's thoughts and words without crediting them.

2. You haven't provided any facts. You've cut and pasted an opinion piece written by a Catholic priest.

You are way out of your league here. This is what happens when you get your degree in constitutionalism from Glenn Beck University.