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

[Intense]

The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.

Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.

Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.

First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever profession we make, to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true and the other well pleasing unto God, such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto Him, we add unto the number of our other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty.

In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that they have framed of things.

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

I think we each need to take the teachings of John Locke, from his perspective, rather than second hand from those that did not share his insight. That's part of the problem. How does one teach what they themselves fail to grasp? Poorly and off track.

 

[Gadawg73]

If by Christian, you limit it strictly to Anabaptist sects such as the Society of Friends (Quakers). Probably the most rabidly secular Christian sects out there.

Every other mainstream and offshoot Christian sect has sought to entangle religion with the apparatus of government.

How and when? Specifics, please. I would like to see legislation that has been introduced with that objective.

That's the thing isn't it?

The Founders held church services in the chambers of Congress on their conviction that as long as attendance was purely voluntary, there was no Constitutional problem with that. They and many of their successors for the next hundred years offered prayers and incorporated their religious convictions into their writings and speeches and made no effort to use politically correct generic language when they did so.

School children started their day with a prayer and prayers at all assemblies and large gatherings were commonplace. Bands and choirs were able to experience and perform the music of the great masters: Bach, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Handel et al. Art teachers lectured on the magniicent religious paintings arising out of the medieval period into the Rennaisance.

One of the highlights of the year for both students and parents at my highschool was a performance of the Messiah in the Christmas concert. People of all denominations and faiths and certainly a few agnostics and Atheists came from miles around to hear it. Framed copies of the Ten Commandments were routinely hung in classrooms, and it was commonplace for a kid to bring a model or artwork or something from Sunday School for show and tell.

Because the communities were predominantly Christian, probably more Christian influence than anything else was prevalent, but if there was a Jewish population or Native American or other, the teachers would always incorporate some of their traditional music into the mix too.

Except for a couple, I can't tell you what religion or religious denomination any of my teachers belonged to or their political affiliations for that matter. None were teaching religion. The were teachng art, literature, culture, history that cannot be taught competently without including the historical religious influence in it. But nobody was afraid to round out a complete education including ALL art, literature, and culture.

And in spite of all that, no theocracy developed. No law or amendment challenging the First Amendment was offered or considered. We remain a religious, mostly Christian, nation with a secular government that, when the Constitution is not corruptly interpreted, allows each community to do their thing as they want provided nobody's unalienable rights are infringed.

You obviously were not raised in the deep south like I was.
NO WAY Jewish or any other religion was incorporated into anything religous.
NO WAY any blacks or native Americans or anyone other than WHITE FOLK and their Christian beliefs was allowed into anything at Christmas or at any time in the public schools.
That was wrong. We have fixed it and not much has changed. Families have 16 hours a day 5 days a week and 24 hours 2 days a week to pray all they want.

 

[Texanmike]

How and when? Specifics, please. I would like to see legislation that has been introduced with that objective.

That's the thing isn't it?

The Founders held church services in the chambers of Congress on their conviction that as long as attendance was purely voluntary, there was no Constitutional problem with that. They and many of their successors for the next hundred years offered prayers and incorporated their religious convictions into their writings and speeches and made no effort to use politically correct generic language when they did so.

School children started their day with a prayer and prayers at all assemblies and large gatherings were commonplace. Bands and choirs were able to experience and perform the music of the great masters: Bach, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Handel et al. Art teachers lectured on the magniicent religious paintings arising out of the medieval period into the Rennaisance.

One of the highlights of the year for both students and parents at my highschool was a performance of the Messiah in the Christmas concert. People of all denominations and faiths and certainly a few agnostics and Atheists came from miles around to hear it. Framed copies of the Ten Commandments were routinely hung in classrooms, and it was commonplace for a kid to bring a model or artwork or something from Sunday School for show and tell.

Because the communities were predominantly Christian, probably more Christian influence than anything else was prevalent, but if there was a Jewish population or Native American or other, the teachers would always incorporate some of their traditional music into the mix too.

Except for a couple, I can't tell you what religion or religious denomination any of my teachers belonged to or their political affiliations for that matter. None were teaching religion. The were teachng art, literature, culture, history that cannot be taught competently without including the historical religious influence in it. But nobody was afraid to round out a complete education including ALL art, literature, and culture.

And in spite of all that, no theocracy developed. No law or amendment challenging the First Amendment was offered or considered. We remain a religious, mostly Christian, nation with a secular government that, when the Constitution is not corruptly interpreted, allows each community to do their thing as they want provided nobody's unalienable rights are infringed.

You obviously were not raised in the deep south like I was.
NO WAY Jewish or any other religion was incorporated into anything religous.
NO WAY any blacks or native Americans or anyone other than WHITE FOLK and their Christian beliefs was allowed into anything at Christmas or at any time in the public schools.
That was wrong. We have fixed it and not much has changed. Families have 16 hours a day 5 days a week and 24 hours 2 days a week to pray all they want.

Then vote with your feet.

Mike

 

[Gadawg73]

That's the thing isn't it?

The Founders held church services in the chambers of Congress on their conviction that as long as attendance was purely voluntary, there was no Constitutional problem with that. They and many of their successors for the next hundred years offered prayers and incorporated their religious convictions into their writings and speeches and made no effort to use politically correct generic language when they did so.

School children started their day with a prayer and prayers at all assemblies and large gatherings were commonplace. Bands and choirs were able to experience and perform the music of the great masters: Bach, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Handel et al. Art teachers lectured on the magniicent religious paintings arising out of the medieval period into the Rennaisance.

One of the highlights of the year for both students and parents at my highschool was a performance of the Messiah in the Christmas concert. People of all denominations and faiths and certainly a few agnostics and Atheists came from miles around to hear it. Framed copies of the Ten Commandments were routinely hung in classrooms, and it was commonplace for a kid to bring a model or artwork or something from Sunday School for show and tell.

Because the communities were predominantly Christian, probably more Christian influence than anything else was prevalent, but if there was a Jewish population or Native American or other, the teachers would always incorporate some of their traditional music into the mix too.

Except for a couple, I can't tell you what religion or religious denomination any of my teachers belonged to or their political affiliations for that matter. None were teaching religion. The were teachng art, literature, culture, history that cannot be taught competently without including the historical religious influence in it. But nobody was afraid to round out a complete education including ALL art, literature, and culture.

And in spite of all that, no theocracy developed. No law or amendment challenging the First Amendment was offered or considered. We remain a religious, mostly Christian, nation with a secular government that, when the Constitution is not corruptly interpreted, allows each community to do their thing as they want provided nobody's unalienable rights are infringed.

You obviously were not raised in the deep south like I was.
NO WAY Jewish or any other religion was incorporated into anything religous.
NO WAY any blacks or native Americans or anyone other than WHITE FOLK and their Christian beliefs was allowed into anything at Christmas or at any time in the public schools.
That was wrong. We have fixed it and not much has changed. Families have 16 hours a day 5 days a week and 24 hours 2 days a week to pray all they want.

Then vote with your feet.

Mike

That was in the 60s when I was in school Mike. Why leave now when the law stops the religous kooks from wanting their mob majority rule? I have lived here all of my life.
Anyone that has crossed the lines and played as many games as I have knows damn well that there are many players and families at the games that DO NOT want an organized Christian prayer at any game.
And we don't and that is a good thing NOW. It wasn't that way when I played.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And in spite of all that, no theocracy developed. No law or amendment challenging the First Amendment was offered or considered. We remain a religious, mostly Christian, nation with a secular government that, when the Constitution is not corruptly interpreted, allows each community to do their thing as they want provided nobody's unalienable rights are infringed.

That no theocracy has developed in spite past activities is not justification now to allow illegal actions in violation of current court interpretation of the First Amendment.

Using that reasoning one should cancel his homeowner’s insurance because the house has never caught fire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights acts as an insurance policy: we hope we never need it, we make efforts to never use it, but it’s there nonetheless, providing protection from abuse, regardless how remote or unlikely.

Furthermore, the FF left us a way to deal with national issues, the amendment process. If separation of church and state (or anything for that matter) is a national issue then write an amendment and ratify it. If it is a 50/50 issue or even a 60/40 issue then it isn't a national issue. If you can't get 75% of the states to agree that it is a national issue then its not truly a national issue. The 14th Amendment, as originally intended, clearly was not meant to apply the bill of rights to the states, it was meant to apply all laws within a state to the States. That much is clear for the first 40 years after the Amendment was ratified. If the 14th amendment was meant to incorporate the Bill of rights or apply all rights "nationally" then it wouldn't have taken almost 50 years for the courts to find that way. Incorporation doctrine itself is an example of virtual legislation from the bench of the supreme court and its time that we put an end that that on both sides. Instead, write the amendment and get it ratified.

I’m sure, then, you’re familiar with Justice Thomas’ ‘concurring dissent’ in the McDonald ruling, incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. Alan Gura, as you might recall, during oral arguments tried to put forward the position that the application should be accomplished via the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than incorporation doctrine.

As you know Thomas was alone in agreement, none of the other justices, including Scalia, were in a mood to overrule The Slaughterhouse Cases.

The logical inference is, therefore, that per the Supreme Court the 14th Amendment does indeed incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, and it is considered settled law.

Also as settled law is Marbury, where the Supreme Court says what the Constitution means, it is authorized to interpret the Constitution per the doctrines of the rule of law and judicial review. The amendment process is consequently not the only process available to Americans to address ‘national issues.’

 

[koshergrl]

Again..please provide evidence of this alleged wide-spread movement to turn the US into a theocracy. Let's see the proposed legislation.

 

[Gadawg73]

Again..please provide evidence of this alleged wide-spread movement to turn the US into a theocracy. Let's see the proposed legislation.

There is no pending legislation to turn the US into a theocracy because the overwhelming majority of the politicians know that the Constitution bans them from doing so.
They know that document protects us from that and seperates church and state.
Good point. The Constitution protects us all from anything and everything religous that tries to impose their prayers and events on others.
Your post supports the fact that there is a seperation of church and state, politicians know it thus do not offer legislation that differs from that doctrine and that prayers and religion do not belong in a public forum if they are organized by government or in a government sponsored setting.
Well done!

 

[Intense]

Again..please provide evidence of this alleged wide-spread movement to turn the US into a theocracy. Let's see the proposed legislation.

There is no pending legislation to turn the US into a theocracy because the overwhelming majority of the politicians know that the Constitution bans them from doing so.
They know that document protects us from that and seperates church and state.
Good point. The Constitution protects us all from anything and everything religous that tries to impose their prayers and events on others.
Your post supports the fact that there is a seperation of church and state, politicians know it thus do not offer legislation that differs from that doctrine and that prayers and religion do not belong in a public forum if they are organized by government or in a government sponsored setting.
Well done!

The Constitution protects us all from anything and everything religous that tries to impose their prayers and events on others.

Exactly....... Wrong. The Constitution protects Us from the Government imposing It's Ideology on Us. Get it? Good. No State Religion. Again, a Christian Concept.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said there wasn't separation of church and state, I said the Constitution doesn't reference it.

There is no pending legislation. There is no past legislation. Because the story that the big bad Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy is a lie. End of story.

 

[Texanmike]

I’m sure, then, you’re familiar with Justice Thomas’ ‘concurring dissent’ in the McDonald ruling, incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. Alan Gura, as you might recall, during oral arguments tried to put forward the position that the application should be accomplished via the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than incorporation doctrine.

As you know Thomas was alone in agreement, none of the other justices, including Scalia, were in a mood to overrule The Slaughterhouse Cases.

The logical inference is, therefore, that per the Supreme Court the 14th Amendment does indeed incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, and it is considered settled law.

Also as settled law is Marbury, where the Supreme Court says what the Constitution means, it is authorized to interpret the Constitution per the doctrines of the rule of law and judicial review. The amendment process is consequently not the only process available to Americans to address ‘national issues.’

You missed the point. Can you show me where the Constitution grants this authority to the SCOTUS?

It doesn't. I mean imagine that. The court granting itself a power not authorized in the Constituiton? Who'd of thunk it? But of course since they are the "Supreme" court they should be able to do whatever they want, they aren't bound by the very document that created the SC. No way, the original intent was for them to govern us.

Come on man. You're arguing that the Supreme Court has the authority because the Supreme Court said it does.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

You obviously were not raised in the deep south like I was.
NO WAY Jewish or any other religion was incorporated into anything religous.
NO WAY any blacks or native Americans or anyone other than WHITE FOLK and their Christian beliefs was allowed into anything at Christmas or at any time in the public schools.
That was wrong. We have fixed it and not much has changed. Families have 16 hours a day 5 days a week and 24 hours 2 days a week to pray all they want.

Then vote with your feet.

Mike

That was in the 60s when I was in school Mike. Why leave now when the law stops the religous kooks from wanting their mob majority rule? I have lived here all of my life.
Anyone that has crossed the lines and played as many games as I have knows damn well that there are many players and families at the games that DO NOT want an organized Christian prayer at any game.
And we don't and that is a good thing NOW. It wasn't that way when I played.

Why does everyone have such a hard time grasping this concept. There are hundreds of examples where I agree with the federal government's policy. I am anti-drug use, I'm anti-same sex marriage, I don't think that prayer has a place in public school etc etc etc. The point isn't this one issue.

The point is the nationalization of policy. It is evil, it is putrid and it will eventually bring us to our knees. I'm not worried about the federal government making a policy that I agree with. I'm worried that it will start to make policies that I disagree with. Then what? What do I do when the other side is in power? I can't say "well, you can't make a law nationally, you don't have that authority" because I would have advocated for that very same authority when my guy was in charge. All of these social issues, all of these "individual freedom" issues deal with a set of rules that make up a community and a lifestyle.

What happens when the pendulum swings in the other direction? What happens if the "moral" majority takes hold again? If the federal government decides that it is ok to have prayer at every game are you suddenly going to throw your hands up and say "oh well?". This isn't about the issue of separation of church and state, it is about limitations on a government which is seizing the chance to grab authority in every aspect of your life.


Look, there are people out there who believe that they know what's best for you. They view your salvation as more important than what you want. (Vicariously baptizing every person in the world, for one example right off the top of my head). They do not understand your "irrational" fear of prayer. They consider themselves both morally and intellectually superior to you and you cannot possibly know what is best for you. They would sieze control of the federal government and then they can use the very same authority that you are arguing now. What do you do then? Before you say "well that's not going to happen", back in the 50's nobody thought that society would make the shift that its making today. Now if you have lifted this debate to a national level, once it goes there, unless you return the power and the debate to the local and state level... you are without recourse. You have no sanctuary. The perfect example is the prohibition of alcohol. There are counties and parishes that are dry. Zero alcohol can be bought or sold in those communities. They don't have the authority however to ban alcohol sale nationally. Thank GOD we got that right in our Amendment process.

Pick a side on any of these social debates. I don't care which side, and advocate for it. Tell people that caring if adam can marry steve it doesn't change their lives. Tell them that prayer is a private thing. Or tell adam that he can't marry steve. Bot arguments have irrational conclusions, just like this one. Having this debate at a national level is dangerous and we've been playing with fire for the last 50 years. It should have always been a state issue, at the largest.

Mike

 

[koshergrl]

Good lord.

Who "vicariously" baptizes everybody?

Here's the skinny..there is no legislation seeking to establish mandated prayer or any religion. The Constitution does not require that we not pray in public, or that we not reference God in public.

The Constitution does state we have the right to follow our faith.

What is it that you people do not understand? Public prayer is not the same as saying "if you don't pray you will be punished". However, PUNISHING people for prayer IS.

Making it illegal for people to reference God in public is forbidden by the Constitution. And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says that everybody must be free from all references to religion, nor is there ANYTHING in the Constitution that says it is wrong for the government to make any reference to, or to accomodate any, religion or religious practice.

Stop trying to take us backwards. Punishing people for being Christian and making it illegal to refer to faith is exactly what our Constitution is meant to prevent. You don't get to do it. Get the hell over it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Especially since when you're interpreting the word "arms", you're at least talking about something that actually APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The Heller ruling addressed the issue of an individual right verses a collective right and the right of self defense. The words ‘individual’ and ‘self defense’ are not in the Second Amendment, yet the Court ruled that one has an individual right to own a handgun in the context of the Constitutional right to self defense. Consequently the right of the individual to own a handgun in self defense is in the Constitution, as with separation of church and State. That the actual words aren’t in the Constitution is irrelevant. The Court interpreted the Second Amendment accordingly, just as it did with the First Amendment.

Or…

If you reject the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State you must also reject the Constitutional doctrine of the individual right to own a handgun in self defense.

One can’t have it both ways.

One isn't asking to "have it both ways". When one is talking about an individual right to self-defense, one is merely paraphrasing and extrapolating from the actual words of the Constitution. When one talks about "separation of church and state", one is inserting words and concepts into the Constitution which don't appear at all.

And I really don't give a fuck how many rulings you cite in place of the actual Constitution. I realize that YOU think Supreme Court rulings ARE the Constitution, but they aren't, they never will be, and so you're just wasting your breath. You might as well be citing me some third-grader's school report. Unlike you, I can both read and think for myself, rather than having to be told what to believe by lawyers in black dresses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is important that the community have the right to do so if that is what the community wants to do.

Why? What is the governmental interest in religious displays? What governmental function is served?

The government has NO interest in religious displays, which is precisely why the government should mind its own business and stop preventing people from putting them up.

What makes you think when Foxfyre says "the community", he/she is talking about GOVERNMENT?

 

[Texanmike]

Good lord.

Who "vicariously" baptizes everybody?

Why do you think the mormans are so good at geneology? They perform vicarious baptisms in attempt to save everyone in the world. Look it up. I'm not bashing them, I'm just saying using them as an example.

Here's the skinny..there is no legislation seeking to establish mandated prayer or any religion. The Constitution does not require that we not pray in public, or that we not reference God in public.

The Constitution does state we have the right to follow our faith.

What is it that you people do not understand? Public prayer is not the same as saying "if you don't pray you will be punished". However, PUNISHING people for prayer IS.

Making it illegal for people to reference God in public is forbidden by the Constitution. And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says that everybody must be free from all references to religion, nor is there ANYTHING in the Constitution that says it is wrong for the government to make any reference to, or to accomodate any, religion or religious practice.

Stop trying to take us backwards. Punishing people for being Christian and making it illegal to refer to faith is exactly what our Constitution is meant to prevent. You don't get to do it. Get the hell over it.

Here's the even skinnier. The Constitution makes it illegal for the federal government to have anything to do with religion. It is not allowed to endorse,establish, promote or forbid it, period.

Mike

 

[Dr.Drock]

One can only dream of the meltdown that would ensue if someone asked at a public school graduation for everyone to bow their heads and pray to Allah and then a mainstream Quran prayer was said.

Or if a teacher said out loud Allah instead of God in the pledge of allegiance.

Or if Quran lines were all over a public building.

Or if ceremonial muslim pieces were put up on a capital building during big holidays in islam.

All the people in here who think it's a great idea to have government involvement in these things towards christianity would be FREAKING out.

 

[Truthmatters]

The United States is A Christian Nation: True or False?: McCain and Parsley have it wrong « The Alligator


If most Americans were given this question most would get it wrong. Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11, 2007 by the First Amendment Center.

 

[Truthmatters]

Sarah Palin Christian Nation Remarks Spark Church and State Separation Debate - ABC News


Sarah Palin said on Friday that it's "mind-boggling" to suggest otherwise.

But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.

"It's incredibly hypocritical that Sarah Palin, who disapproves of government involvement in just about anything, now suddenly wants the government to help people be religious," Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told ABC News.

"It is wildly inconsistent with her views on limited government to get the government involved in matters of faith."

 

[Gadawg73]

Then vote with your feet.

Mike

That was in the 60s when I was in school Mike. Why leave now when the law stops the religous kooks from wanting their mob majority rule? I have lived here all of my life.
Anyone that has crossed the lines and played as many games as I have knows damn well that there are many players and families at the games that DO NOT want an organized Christian prayer at any game.
And we don't and that is a good thing NOW. It wasn't that way when I played.

Why does everyone have such a hard time grasping this concept. There are hundreds of examples where I agree with the federal government's policy. I am anti-drug use, I'm anti-same sex marriage, I don't think that prayer has a place in public school etc etc etc. The point isn't this one issue.

The point is the nationalization of policy. It is evil, it is putrid and it will eventually bring us to our knees. I'm not worried about the federal government making a policy that I agree with. I'm worried that it will start to make policies that I disagree with. Then what? What do I do when the other side is in power? I can't say "well, you can't make a law nationally, you don't have that authority" because I would have advocated for that very same authority when my guy was in charge. All of these social issues, all of these "individual freedom" issues deal with a set of rules that make up a community and a lifestyle.

What happens when the pendulum swings in the other direction? What happens if the "moral" majority takes hold again? If the federal government decides that it is ok to have prayer at every game are you suddenly going to throw your hands up and say "oh well?". This isn't about the issue of separation of church and state, it is about limitations on a government which is seizing the chance to grab authority in every aspect of your life.


Look, there are people out there who believe that they know what's best for you. They view your salvation as more important than what you want. (Vicariously baptizing every person in the world, for one example right off the top of my head). They do not understand your "irrational" fear of prayer. They consider themselves both morally and intellectually superior to you and you cannot possibly know what is best for you. They would sieze control of the federal government and then they can use the very same authority that you are arguing now. What do you do then? Before you say "well that's not going to happen", back in the 50's nobody thought that society would make the shift that its making today. Now if you have lifted this debate to a national level, once it goes there, unless you return the power and the debate to the local and state level... you are without recourse. You have no sanctuary. The perfect example is the prohibition of alcohol. There are counties and parishes that are dry. Zero alcohol can be bought or sold in those communities. They don't have the authority however to ban alcohol sale nationally. Thank GOD we got that right in our Amendment process.

Pick a side on any of these social debates. I don't care which side, and advocate for it. Tell people that caring if adam can marry steve it doesn't change their lives. Tell them that prayer is a private thing. Or tell adam that he can't marry steve. Bot arguments have irrational conclusions, just like this one. Having this debate at a national level is dangerous and we've been playing with fire for the last 50 years. It should have always been a state issue, at the largest.

Mike

I have no "irratitional fear of prayer".
Why make crap up?

 

[Truthmatters]

becuase they have to do anything and everything to keep believing the historically failed ideas they espouse