Ridiculing Dan Severenson saying there is no such thing as separation of church and state shows how clueless the author is. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any such thing. Separation of church and state is a creation of liberals promoted by the ACLU. The US was created as a Christian nation that tolerates other religions unlike some other countries which prohibit other religions than the state religion. I suppose Al Franken an example of a sane politician?
[Reply to Post]
Oh my goodness, you really don't know how to read too well do you Ty Jones. By your logic you must be the spokesperson for the Rev. Jim Jones from Guyana. On December 4, 1920, T. Samsonov head of a secret department of the Checka wrote to Dzherzhinsky saying "communism and religion are mutually exclusive." Stalin used churches as a means of directing attention to him as the new god succeeding Lenin. So this is nothing new. Ordinary civilians are being misled by government criminals and the state-run media. What history do you promote?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-26/minnesota-michele-bachmanns-loony-state/?cid=hp:mainpromo3
Minnesota: Michele Bachmann’s Loony State
by John Avlon
Daily Beast
March 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Back to school!
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by 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, and (3), 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 where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion. 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 describe 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.”
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. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
You are one of many who open accounts only to post comments or to send messages. Citing case law does not establish the accuracy of your separation of church and state doctrine. Nor does calling yourself a lawyer give your words any more weight than others, especially (nothing personal) in view of the reputation of the profession. Considering the outrageous decisions of judges across this fractured nation run by criminals only shows how misguided judges can be. Not only the criminal cases. You are entitled to your interpretation and I'll keep mine. Americans are being denied their rights to worship as they want due to the misguided interpretation of the First Amendment which does not include any statement regarding separation. Efforts to twist the meaning of the Constitution are in progress by Americans (often attorneys) who promote communism or socialism. On December 4, 1920, T. Samsonov head of a secret department of the Checka wrote to Dzherzhinsky saying "communism and religion are mutually exclusive." Stalin used churches as a means of directing attention to him as the new god succeeding Lenin. So this is nothing new. Ordinary civilians are being misled by government criminals and the state-run media.
Post a Comment