• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There's no such thing as "Separation of Church and State"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Step one, disect.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The first part of this permits every american the right to believe whatever they wish, and form a religious group based upon that belief system.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The second part shackels congress from making any law that would prohibit the belief system put in place by said religion.

Step Two Understand.

This part of the law in the literal sense says "You can make any law you wish as an individual or group by saying "God said it be so", and act upon that law in any manner you wish with no government intervention."

With this current law in place, the government has no right to tell you, that your not permitted to sacrafice a human being. Sacrafice may be from outdated religions, however it is still a religious belief. And therefore congress has no right to pass any law that would "Prohibit the free exercise of" that belief. Which in a very literal sense means you can kill someone if you believe your God wants them dead, and the government has no right to do anything about it.

Also, you must understand all current religion are nothing more than (in my opinion) seperate government bodies with there own laws, in use of obtaining power for those in high positions. I have yet to be given solid proof that any law or doctrine in any religion was written by anyone but man. (If you have proof, please share.)

Step Three Remove

Even if you add the words "Seperation of Church and State" to the constitution, it would not fully protect anyone from the possible previously mentioned (all though highly unlikly) scenario. Therefore we should just remove this part of the law all together. Yes, I believe the govenment should regulate religion. Although with our current system in the shambles it is in, I do see it being problematic. But so is everything else with the government involved. Personally, I think Religion should be banned all together. And though this is a very unpopular view, I believe it will if nothing else remove one more reason people kill eachother needlessly.

The second part of this post will be more involved with the current topic at hand.

As for Seperation of Church and State, you are right in the matter that it does not appear in the constitution and therefor if you wish to pray in school or put up your nativity scene on public property, you should have every right to do so. However, this also means that in those same places People of older religions such as the pagan religions of early europe should be permitted to dance naked to celebrate the solstice and equinox. And they would have to be permitted to have sexual encounters in public as part of their celebration. So if your ok with a mass orgy a few feet away from baby jesus, then by all means don't seperate church and state.
 
AmericanPatriot said:
Yes, I believe the govenment should regulate religion.
Click to expand...

Why the hell should the government give a damn about my personal spiritual beliefs?

I'm not religious - I do not attend church nor do I identify myself with any formed religion. So to suggest that my personal, deep and private beliefs about where we came from and where we might be going is ridiculous. In fact - my overall view of organized religion is that it's merely man's attempt to control man - sounding similar to your view. But I believe in spirituality and I believe that some sects of religions are pure and untethered to this 'control over others' aspect.

If you truly believe this then you're not actually a "American Patriot"
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Why the hell should the government give a damn about my personal spiritual beliefs?

I'm not religious - I do not attend church nor do I identify myself with any formed religion. So to suggest that my personal, deep and private beliefs about where we came from and where we might be going is ridiculous. In fact - my overall view of organized religion is that it's merely man's attempt to control man - sounding similar to your view. But I believe in spirituality and I believe that some sects of religions are pure and untethered to this 'control over others' aspect.

If you truly believe this then you're not actually a "American Patriot"
Click to expand...

very sorry, I do believe I mispoke and was misunderstood. I do not mean for them to regulate belief systems of religion. You should be free to believe whatever you wish. however I see no reason for your beliefs to extend beyond your private life. I.E. praying at school or work, or (call it what you will) attempting to convert others to your beliefs. If your beliefs are merely based upon what someone has told you, how can you truely believe it? I also am very spiritual, however I attempt to keep my views upon the matter private.

To be more clear on my point, I mean the public display or practice of religion. I.E. Muslim women covering their face in places where other may not wear hats or nativity scenes (which are offensive to some) on public property.
 
Last edited:
AmericanPatriot said:
very sorry, I do believe I mispoke and was misunderstood. I do not mean for them to regulate belief systems of religion. You should be free to believe whatever you wish. however I see no reason for your beliefs to extend beyond your private life. I.E. praying at school or work, or (call it what you will) attempting to convert others to your beliefs. If your beliefs are merely based upon what someone has told you, how can you truely believe it? I also am very spiritual, however I attempt to keep my views upon the matter private.

To be more clear on my point, I mean the public display or practice of religion. I.E. Muslim women covering their face in places where other may not wear hats or nativity scenes (which are offensive to some) on public property.
Click to expand...

No, I understood your point:
"Separation of Church and State" is flawed and does not give absolute protection against certain things.
Therefor - you stated that you believed the government should regulate religion - and in fact not just regulate it, but ban it altogether.
You also conclude that religion is the key component in many heinous acts and crimes (as if atheists don't rob banks or kill people or something).

Even if you add the words "Seperation of Church and State" to the constitution, it would not fully protect anyone from the possible previously mentioned (all though highly unlikly) scenario. Therefore we should just remove this part of the law all together. Yes, I believe the govenment should regulate religion. Although with our current system in the shambles it is in, I do see it being problematic. But so is everything else with the government involved. Personally, I think Religion should be banned all together. And though this is a very unpopular view, I believe it will if nothing else remove one more reason people kill eachother needlessly.
Click to expand...

There are several famous cases concerning things of this exact nature.

In these cases the SCOTUS established several standard 'tests' or 'rules' in order to fairly govern this sensitive area - these are the two most commonly applied:
One: You cannot exersize a religious practice *in the name of* religion if it infringes on someone else's right (this isn't cut and dry - thus why it's a court-related issue and decision to be made case by case. So if your religion requires murdering someone for entry into shangrila - it's unacceptable since it violates someone else's rights - thus neutralizing your argument about the whole ' what if your religion permitted human sacrifices' bit).
Two: Anything that's passed which might affect a religion CANNOT target that religion alone. It must be adopted and applied equally to all.

I think you're looking at organized religions in a purely pessemistic light. . . they actually do a lot of good for individuals - they come together under their own guidance, not supported by the government, and benefit the community, families - help in times of need, provide shelter, food, healthcare. . . so on, so forth.

While you and I tend to see religions as being toxic in some ways - I seem capable of still seeing the positives that come from them.

My father's a minister - and their church has a massive community outreach program which gives food, shelter, medical care (on a small scale) to a large variety of people. Every day my Dad assists people who are genuinely suffering and having a hard time in life - he buys people's prescriptions, he gives people gas-money - he really tries to actually help those who come to him for help.

But he also has had to become keen on people who try to fraud him for money - he's gone through a lot to try to avoid assisting the drug addicts and to give help to the truly needy.
That is a positive that you can't shake a stick at - and to suggest that somehow it's BAD or should be done away with is impish.

If your beliefs are merely based upon what someone has told you, how can you truely believe it?
Click to expand...
Such a trite and narrow minded statement.

How much medical research have you done? Yet you studied science in school - taking the bits presented in book and on powerpoint as fact eventhough you've not done the experiment yourself.
How much exploration of the universe or the ocean have you done? Yet you learn from what others have experienced and discovered.

If you doubt everything that other people tell you - then how can you progress in life without going insane or ending up homeless?

Hopefully you see my point on this - and you won't be unrolling the foil hats anytime soon.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Such a trite and narrow minded statement.

How much medical research have you done? Yet you studied science in school - taking the bits presented in book and on powerpoint as fact eventhough you've not done the experiment yourself.
How much exploration of the universe or the ocean have you done? Yet you learn from what others have experienced and discovered.

If you doubt everything that other people tell you - then how can you progress in life without going insane or ending up homeless?

Hopefully you see my point on this - and you won't be unrolling the foil hats anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Umm, just wanted to address this point here...

You are right that many people take the word of others when it comes to science stuff. But the difference between that and taking the word of people that say God exists is that we can go out and test and experiment on what people say about science ourselves to the same degree that others before us have done. No one can prove that God exists. That is a very big difference.
 
AmericanPatriot said:
very sorry, I do believe I mispoke and was misunderstood. I do not mean for them to regulate belief systems of religion. You should be free to believe whatever you wish. however I see no reason for your beliefs to extend beyond your private life. I.E. praying at school or work, or (call it what you will) attempting to convert others to your beliefs. If your beliefs are merely based upon what someone has told you, how can you truely believe it? I also am very spiritual, however I attempt to keep my views upon the matter private.

To be more clear on my point, I mean the public display or practice of religion. I.E. Muslim women covering their face in places where other may not wear hats or nativity scenes (which are offensive to some) on public property.
Click to expand...
Not sure where to begin. Your first post, while intending the right intent, does in fact miss the mark. The Amendment is very plain and understandable. Don't need to be a Supreme court justice to understand it. Congress can make no law regarding religion, period, either prescribing a type of practice or controlling a practice. Of course that doesn't mean you can conduct human sacrifices. But the left has gotten ridiculous in its zealous attempt to drive all forms of religion oral, writen and images from public places....because they are offended. Atheists fear religion, and are afraid of being expect to conduct themselves with good behavior as is prescribed by most religions.
 
Badfish420 said:
no one is telling you that you cannot be in the government and practice religion, that is one of our core American values, you can believe whatever you want, which is why there is a seperation of church and state, so government can't tell you what to belive!!
Click to expand...

Yet God is on your money
 
Aunt Spiker said:
There are several famous cases concerning things of this exact nature.

In these cases the SCOTUS established several standard 'tests' or 'rules' in order to fairly govern this sensitive area - these are the two most commonly applied:
One: You cannot exersize a religious practice *in the name of* religion if it infringes on someone else's right (this isn't cut and dry - thus why it's a court-related issue and decision to be made case by case. So if your religion requires murdering someone for entry into shangrila - it's unacceptable since it violates someone else's rights - thus neutralizing your argument about the whole ' what if your religion permitted human sacrifices' bit).
Two: Anything that's passed which might affect a religion CANNOT target that religion alone. It must be adopted and applied equally to all.
Click to expand...

I think this is a prime example of the breakdown in democracy. No longer following the constitution to the letter, and instead adjusting or amending as seen fit by a person in position to do so whom is not elected by the people. You'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but I do believe that no supreme court justice has ever been elected to the bench (though I base this on conceptual knowledge, not literal). And how can they make a rule that prevents you from infringing on other's rights, when the constitution clearly says "Congress will pass no law.....prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I do not see it say "Unless it infringes on anothers rights". You can make the case that these rules are not law, but then the case can be made that if they are not law then they should not apply.

You also conclude that religion is the key component in many heinous acts and crimes (as if atheists don't rob banks or kill people or something).
Click to expand...

Well to be honest, I don't think Atheists are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials. As for Atheists doing anything in the name of.... well no god I suppose, I have yet to hear of such. (please inform me if you have any good referance material related.)

While you and I tend to see religions as being toxic in some ways - I seem capable of still seeing the positives that come from them.

My father's a minister - and their church has a massive community outreach program which gives food, shelter, medical care (on a small scale) to a large variety of people. Every day my Dad assists people who are genuinely suffering and having a hard time in life - he buys people's prescriptions, he gives people gas-money - he really tries to actually help those who come to him for help.
Click to expand...

I am able to see many positive qualities of religion. I just don't close my eyes to the double sided blade it really is. I would like you to think hard on this. How often do you see or hear of a Christian chruch go out of its way to help muslims or jews? you will find a few cases, but not many I am sure, and the stick goes both ways with muslims and jews helping christians. And though churchs do help people, I don't understand the need of seperation between people. Why can we not as human beings come together and congregate without religious intent to help eachother? Why not just have a comunity center, where everyone in town might meet once a week and just socialize? What I see religion do, is merely divide our communities, and that is one main reason I see it as toxic. where you see togetherness, I am looking at a broader picture of the people who are left out, or feel they don't belong because they don't accept the same divine insperation. And as quoted from Asops fables "United we stand, divided we fall."



If you doubt everything that other people tell you - then how can you progress in life without going insane or ending up homeless?
Click to expand...

I do not claim to be a sane person, and I would doubt if anyone told me they were either. (I hope you can see the bit of levity I am using here) As for being homeless, I do not believe such a thing is possible. Though it would depend on which definition of home you are using.
 
AmericanPatriot said:
very sorry, I do believe I mispoke and was misunderstood. I do not mean for them to regulate belief systems of religion. You should be free to believe whatever you wish. however I see no reason for your beliefs to extend beyond your private life. I.E. praying at school or work, or (call it what you will) attempting to convert others to your beliefs. If your beliefs are merely based upon what someone has told you, how can you truely believe it? I also am very spiritual, however I attempt to keep my views upon the matter private.

To be more clear on my point, I mean the public display or practice of religion. I.E. Muslim women covering their face in places where other may not wear hats or nativity scenes (which are offensive to some) on public property.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything except banning head coverings. That would limit "Free exercise thereof"
 
AmericanPatriot said:
I think this is a prime example of the breakdown in democracy. No longer following the constitution to the letter, and instead adjusting or amending as seen fit by a person in position to do so whom is not elected by the people.
Click to expand...

That's the point - the Constitution is not a solid and unchanging document. It is written to be added to, interpreted flexibly, and amended as seen necessary and acceptable.

You'll have to forgive me my ignorance, but I do believe that no supreme court justice has ever been elected to the bench (though I base this on conceptual knowledge, not literal).
Click to expand...

True - they are not elected. We adhere to a series of check and balances to try to ensure that no one branch of government is submissive or dominate of another. In doing so they chose to have the Justices be appointed - not elected by popular vote.

And how can they make a rule that prevents you from infringing on other's rights, when the constitution clearly says "Congress will pass no law.....prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I do not see it say "Unless it infringes on anothers rights". You can make the case that these rules are not law, but then the case can be made that if they are not law then they should not apply.
Click to expand...

It is a standard that was adopted to deal with the issue that arises when the rights of two people or entities conflict with each other - which happens often.

It being used is common practice that many countries follow and therefor it's rooted in case-law and quite traditional.

You cannot guarantee absolute rights - because those rights can often conflict. Thus, the superior right often trumps - it's a case by case basis.

In your scenario of religious-sacrifice VS right to life - someone's right to life trumps a person's religious 'desire to sacrifice.'

Well to be honest, I don't think Atheists are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials. As for Atheists doing anything in the name of.... well no god I suppose, I have yet to hear of such. (please inform me if you have any good referance material related.)
Click to expand...

I argue against organized religion all the time - I know the tricks and the traps. Your attempt to argue me on this subject is futile.

But since you want to know of what atheism is connected to or what an absence of organized religion is connected to you can easily look to Hitler, Pol Pot, the Russian Purges - and on and on. A lot of travesties happen without religion being considered, valued or involved as a central component - if it's involved or in the scope of reason at all.

Most certainly Stalin didn't attend church, that's for sure.

I am able to see many positive qualities of religion. I just don't close my eyes to the double sided blade it really is. I would like you to think hard on this. How often do you see or hear of a Christian chruch go out of its way to help muslims or jews? you will find a few cases, but not many I am sure, and the stick goes both ways with muslims and jews helping christians. And though churchs do help people, I don't understand the need of seperation between people.
Click to expand...

You're asking me - an non-religious person - to try to explain to another non-religious person the feelings or inter workings of religious-thought processes?

I fail to see how that is even possible to dissect considering I haven't even stepped inside a church in over 10 years. . . However, when I was a devote Christian I didn't pay attention to what religion other people *were* - I didn't have a questionaire for an applicant to fill out if they came to the food pantry.

But that was just me - and though I'm no longer a believer or religious - I most certainly haven't changed my cultural and religious acceptance or mellow nature.

Why can we not as human beings come together and congregate without religious intent to help eachother? Why not just have a comunity center, where everyone in town might meet once a week and just socialize?
Click to expand...

We do have these things - you just don't realize it.
The Red Cross and so on - aren't these people coming together to help others? Don't they travel the world and even provide assistance in our enemies land?

But such organizations struggle to function - they lean on people's donations to function and people, individuals, don't donate enough.

So your question really should be "why are people people?" . . .why don't people want to help others more.

What I see religion do, is merely divide our communities, and that is one main reason I see it as toxic. where you see togetherness, I am looking at a broader picture of the people who are left out, or feel they don't belong because they don't accept the same divine insperation. And as quoted from Asops fables "United we stand, divided we fall."
Click to expand...

I don't live in your community, town, area or state - I can't answer your concern over what your area lacks in contrast to mine.

I am not religious - I do not attend church nor am I active in our community - but everyone else is and it seems that religion brings them together - and I'm not in their mix. :shrug: So it seems my personal-living style is in direct contrast to your belief.

It seems, then - that the core of our problems is HUMAN NATURE - something which many religions try to 'solve' - and so do many non-religious theories and so on.
But you can't fix what isn't broken.

We are the way we are and there's really no changing our actual nature - people can fight it, hide from it - or eventually accept that we're not perfect all-loving creatures.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by AmericanPatriot
I think this is a prime example of the breakdown in democracy. No longer following the constitution to the letter, and instead adjusting or amending as seen fit by a person in position to do so whom is not elected by the people.
Click to expand...

That's the point - the Constitution is not a solid and unchanging document. It is written to be added to, interpreted flexibly, and amended as seen necessary and acceptable.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where I said "by a person in position to do so whom is not elected by the people." This is very important, since the legeslative branch is the only branch that passes laws. Not the Judicial, not the Executive. The Legeslative. And anything decided by the SCOTUS is not law, it is merely a ruling. As for the constitution not being solid, if we don't have a solid base to stand on, how can we expect to stand. I assure you, the constitution is solid. It may be ever changing, but that does not make it any less solid.

True - they are not elected. We adhere to a series of check and balances to try to ensure that no one branch of government is submissive or dominate of another. In doing so they chose to have the Justices be appointed - not elected by popular vote.
Click to expand...

Your going to have to forgive me, but I miss the point on this statement. How is having the Justices appointed by another branch of government in anyway equalling the playing field from having them elected by popular vote? If anything, all it does is give power to corruption that could take root. (i'm not trying to be a concpiricy theory guy here, but anyone who doesn't think most of washington is in bed with eachother is a bit foolish in my opinion)

It is a standard that was adopted to deal with the issue that arises when the rights of two people or entities conflict with each other - which happens often.

It being used is common practice that many countries follow and therefor it's rooted in case-law and quite traditional.
Click to expand...

So, then your saying even though the law says your not allowed to kill someone, if the SCOTUS decides that they want ethnic cleansing of jews, they can make case-law that would conform the right to kill jews? My point here, is they have no right to change the law to their fitting. And by using these standards that is what they are doing, they are adding their own words into the law, words that do not exist anywhere within the creation of that law. If they want to use these rules, they should petition congress to add them, not assume they have the power to just do whatever they want. Oh, and thats a check and balance right there that the Judicial branch is just bypassing. So much for our entire governmental system.

I just want to take a moment to thank you for your great points. This has been a very wonderful conversation, and I wanted to assure you I hold you in great respect at the current moment.
 
I argue against organized religion all the time - I know the tricks and the traps. Your attempt to argue me on this subject is futile.

But since you want to know of what atheism is connected to or what an absence of organized religion is connected to you can easily look to Hitler, Pol Pot, the Russian Purges - and on and on. A lot of travesties happen without religion being considered, valued or involved as a central component - if it's involved or in the scope of reason at all.
Click to expand...



" I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2.

That doesn't sound like an aithiest to me.

"Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler." - Prince Norodom Sihanouk


And Stalin was the only self proclaimed Aithiest of that group, but there is no direct connection to him being an athiest, and what he did.

However, of all of them, The acctual Athiestic view is only a possible effect of one of these three. And that is Pol Pot. And even then, it can be disputed that him being an athiest had nothing to do with what he is infamous for. Where as in my examples...

I.E. the Spanish Inquisition which was ordered by Pope Lucius III, And the Salem Witch Trials, which are just a mere speck compared to the mass murder caused by the Malleus Maleficarum. So when you compare Pol Pot and his actions in Cambodia to that, there is no comparison in truth. Though I do thank you for the subject matter, I can't say I fully enjoyed researching these topics, however knowledge is useful.


when I asked for references I didn't mean any athiest who commited atrocities, I ment atrocities commited because of athieism.
 
since the legeslative branch is the only branch that passes laws. Not the Judicial, not the Executive.
Click to expand...

How is having the Justices appointed by another branch of government in anyway equalling the playing field from having them elected by popular vote?
Click to expand...

How old are you? Did you go to college? Did you pay attention when reading the many chapters on how our government ACTUALLY functions?

The SCOTUS' decisions and mandates HEAVILY influence rules and regulations - and so do Agencies which aren't even an official and constitutionally-mandated branch of government yet they govern more of a business' ongoings than anything else.

The Check and Balances ARE fair - leaving no single one branch or entity more dominating than another - justices serve for life or until they retire - they are appointed - this makes them far less effected by the fleeting mood of the public which is more sensible when you consider how powerful their decisions truly are.

We're NOT a pure Democracy - we ARE a Republic who observes democratic measures for part of our governing - aka - a representative democracy.

That is how it's written within the Constitution.
Are you supporting the Constitution or not? Seems like you don't agree with it since you don't get how the checks-and-balances work, or how the powers to mandate and legislate are shared through these powers.

You should be bawlking about how much free-regulation Agencies have and barking up THAT unruled and ungoverned tree of government instead of accusing religions of being the bane of all evil.

Our country formed AFTER the Protestant Reformation and AFTER the Spanish Inquisition - we were in fact colonized by the very people who were repelled from Europe and who felt that the Catholic Church wasn't STRICT ENOUGH with all of their God-endowed measure to control the populous. Thankfully their opinions aren't the ones who formed our country as it is today.
Our religious folds within our country are not the ones directly responsible for all those many things. The fact that we encourage and support a vast MIX of religion - and they're separated from government - is how we permit people to adhere to their faith without it directly governing our country.

That is how we function.
That is what makes us "America"

And you don't seem to get that or understand it - and so I'm done with you on this issue.
 
The founding fathers were aware of just how bad European govts were because of influence from the Pope. That is why we don't want any religion having any say in government...other than your choice of which hypocrite to vote for....
 
VF500 said:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, it is a phantasy of liberals.
 
Alfons said:
I agree with you, it is a phantasy of liberals.
Click to expand...
So, which religion would you prefer run the country? Baptist? Catholic? Methodist? Lutheran?
 
UtahBill said:
So, which religion would you prefer run the country? Baptist? Catholic? Methodist? Lutheran?
Click to expand...

Buddhist? Islamic? Shinto? Wiccan?

I think I'd choose Buddhist, personally, but the question was directed at alfons.
 
Thomas Jefferson, who is most cited with regards to the term, asked that only three of his accomplishments be mentioned on his tombstone. These were writing the Declaration of Independence, establishing the University of Virginia, and writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Here is how that law opens:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
Click to expand...

Funny how the very man who spoke the words used as a rallying cry by militant atheists in their campaign to destroy religion would declare matter-of-factly the existence of a supreme deity in a piece of legislation. It is indeed funny that he was so proud of this law that he asked it be included with his writing the declaration of independence on a permanent marker as one of his achievements.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
Thomas Jefferson, who is most cited with regards to the term, asked that only three of his accomplishments be mentioned on his tombstone. These were writing the Declaration of Independence, establishing the University of Virginia, and writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Here is how that law opens:



Funny how the very man who spoke the words used as a rallying cry by militant atheists in their campaign to destroy religion would declare matter-of-factly the existence of a supreme deity in a piece of legislation. It is indeed funny that he was so proud of this law that he asked it be included with his writing the declaration of independence on a permanent marker as one of his achievements.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've heard Jefferson described as an atheist by anyone.

I have heard the philosophy of the creator having created the mind of man to be free, unfettered by coercion to follow any particular dogma or subscribe to any orgainzed religion.

Which, of course, is much different from atheism.
 
Why do some religious people wish for a lack of separation between Church and State?

What benefits could possibly come about from incorporating religion and government?
 
Tucker Case said:
Why do some religious people wish for a lack of separation between Church and State?

What benefits could possibly come about from incorporating religion and government?
Click to expand...

Because they want a reason to pick our pockets without legally obsticles, the faith base inititives are still nothing but a government pay out to the religious right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom