Quantcast

Separation of church and state one way only?

LittleMissPatriot 2012/02/28 17:04:12
Why is it that the left seems to think their fictitious 'separation of church and state' only applies to Christians or Jews being involved in politics and government, but NOT to government interfering in what churches teach, where they meet and who they hire? Or to muslims disturbing the peace while worshiping their false god and sharia law being allowed to override our Constitutional laws but Christians are arrested for praying quietly in public?

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” -Patrick Henry 1776

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.”
- Thomas Jefferson
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Tink123 2012/02/28 18:55:41
    Tink123
    +7
    The separation of church and state is not fictitious even though it's not specifically termed that way in the Bill of Rights. That was Thomas Jefferson's term. It's real and it is "one way" - one very simple "way."

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

    There is a reason the "separation" is included in the Bill of Rights. So while the govt. cannot "legalize" use of governmental force to disparage your religious freedom, you can not use governmental force to legally impose your religious views on society. Really very simple.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • D S 2013/05/27 11:00:42
    D S
    . Patrick Henry never said anything like it; it was written in the 1950s. The writer David Barton misread a book and became in"The Myth of Separation" (1988) the first person to claim Henry wrote it. And Jefferson so despised what the christian church was and still is he made his own bible removing all accounts and passages that allude to Jesus being the son of God.
  • Dave 2012/03/02 11:39:22
    Dave
    The way this was set up in our Constitution is brilliant. But like anything else that was intended to establish freedom for our citizens, it stands in the way of power mongers in our day.

    This just happens to be the most visited story on my blog. The Hollering Stump:Separation Of Church And State

    And then there's this... The Hollering Stump:Should Home Based Bible Studies Be Government Approved?

    separation church hollering stump home based bible studies government approved
  • Marek 2012/03/01 00:51:46
    Marek
    +1
    The government should follow the Constitution to the letter not asking courts to redefine it and if the court refuse then doing it in some other way. The Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. period. The government can only enforce the laws passed by Congress. As much as it is unlikely that I would do it but if I wanted to, I should be able to put the statue of allah up on my property and neither government nor muslims should be able to make me take it down.
  • Spizzzo BN-0 2012/02/29 21:30:10
    Spizzzo BN-0
    +1
    Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

    I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.

    Thomas Jefferson
  • Marlow ~ Let There Be Light 2012/02/29 13:47:21
    Marlow ~ Let There Be Light
    +1
    Beacuse Liberals took over the supreme court in the 1950s and 60s and they distorted the first amendment. The first amendment does not say that religions can't pursue their ideas in the public square.
  • Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/02/29 02:55:55
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +2
    Because they want everything their way. Actually, the media is the true enemy of America and the stupid people are just a byproduct.
  • heirsoftheking 2012/02/29 00:32:44
    heirsoftheking
    +3
    The world has known us as the richest, most generous, most powerful nation in history, all the time while we've been "One Nation Under God."

    If you take God out, we will be "One Nation Under."
  • Dave heirsof... 2012/03/02 23:08:31
    Dave
    I like that! Mind if I use it?! :)
  • jams 2012/02/29 00:02:06
    jams
    +1
    Churches should be taxed as corporations.
  • 2012 Obama 2012/02/28 23:48:42
    2012 Obama
    +1
    "worshiping their false god "

    Separation of church and state is derived from the first amendment which prevents the government from establishing a national religion.

    YOU obviously believe YOUR Christian religion is the only correct religion based on your statements and that is exactly why the first amendment exists to prevent people like YOU from getting into government and trying to force your beliefs on other people.

    Bigots need to go!
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2012/02/28 23:01:47
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    +1
    Didn't you know? Government doesn't "interfere" in anything, it "manages" or "helps" or "corrects" lol. Spin, spin, spin.

    Good question!
  • AL 2012/02/28 22:39:22 (edited)
    AL
    +1
    If Obama gets away with this Government interference when it comes to the Catholic Churches freedom of Religion-you can bet your life he'll try to pressure their Hospitals to perform abortion next!Because whats to stop him from taking their tax exempt status away- if they refuse to do so at that point?
  • rightside 2012/02/28 22:33:23
    rightside
    +3
    It seems like bama has switched this around. He doesn't want any comments from Christians, but he wants to tell them what to do.
    The Christians left Europe because the government was telling them how to run the church. That's exactly what the constitution means.
  • mich52 2012/02/28 21:27:06
  • Herb 2012/02/28 20:18:11
    Herb
    +1
    Separation of church and state
    "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or...&















































    &&







    &&


























    Separation of church and state
    "Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
    Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

    Did the Founding Fathers support a separation of church and state?
    PRO (yes) CON (no)

    James M. Dunn, PhD, Resident Professor of Christianity and Public Policy at Wake Forest University's School of Divinity, wrote in the chapter "Neutrality and the Establishment Clause" published in the 1990 book Equal Separation: Understanding the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, edited by Paul J. Weber:
    "It was Jefferson who gave us the phrase, 'a wall of separation between church and state.' It's downright silly to act as if those specific words, 'separation of church and state,' have to be in the Constitution for the concept to be there.
    Madison in pleading for Virginia's ratification of the new Constitution said, 'There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.' This view was consistent with his earlier comment on the Statute for Religious Liberty when he wrote Jefferson that the bill had 'extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.' Madison's logic requires a separation of church and state well beyond a flimsy injunction against the establishment of a national church...
    ...The Founders were divided but the majority favored separation of church and state. It was precisely for religious freedom, not against it, that Jefferson wanted to keep the church out of the state's business and vice versa."

    1990 - James M. Dunn, PhD
    _____________________________...
    In Everson v. Board of Education (decided Feb. 10, 1947), the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, held that:
    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to
    erect 'a wall of separation between church and

    Separation of Church and State? The founding fathers’ views on religion and government
    After the recent flap over the 9th circuit court’s pledge decision (ruling the added phrase ‘under God,’ inserted into the pledge in 1954, to be unconstitutional), I’ve received a lot of requests for the thoughts of the Founding fathers on the issue of Separation of Church and State. At issue is the belief of many mainstream Christians that separation is a later construct of the courts, and never intended by the founders. Another prominent argument is that the founders only opposed the establishment of one Christian sect over another, and not Christianity as a whole. Yet another popular belief is that the first amendment only applies to laws restricting religion, and that the majority should be able to do as they wish, using references to the ‘Creator’ in documents as a tacit endorsement of Christianity. I believe all of these arguments to be incorrect, and who better to argue the issue than the principal author of the constitution, founders themselves?

    Quotes are arranged in a question/answer format, to highlight common arguments.

    Argument one: The phrase ‘separation of Church and state’ is of recent origin, and the concept was not known or promulgated by the founders.

    False. The Founders were well aware of the threats posed by religion/state entanglement; it’s what gave the world Kings with “divine right.”

    The exact phrase was first used in Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to separate state and religion:

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

    James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

    “The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.” (1819).

    Argument two: But the founders meant only that no sect of Christianity was to be elevated above another, but still meant our government to be Christian…

    “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform” (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

    “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

    “Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. ” (ibid)

    “How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment .” (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

    Argument three: But one of the first acts of Congress was to appoint a Christian chaplain!

    This they did do, years before the ratification of the bill of rights. Madison’s objection:

    “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor. " (Memorial and Remonstrance)

    "If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

    "That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)

    "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country” (George Washington, 1789).

    “In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst.” (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

    “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.” (ibid)

    “The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment’” (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

    “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support.” (George Washington, letter to the Touro Synagogue 1790. )

    “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.” (John Adams)

    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses….” (John Adams, 1787)

    “…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” (ibid)

    Further quotes:

    “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.” (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

    “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?” (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)




    Joseph Farah, Founder, Editor, and Chief Executive Officer of WorldNetDaily.com, wrote in his Mar. 28, 2007 article "Stark, Raving Atheist," published on WorldNetDaily.com:
    "Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported – strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis...
    If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any founder ever used the phrase 'separation of church and state.'
    Yet, throughout Jefferson's long life in politics and government, we see a man who, by today's standards, would be viewed by people like Stark [US Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)] as a card-carrying member of the religious right.
    Jefferson not only went to church as president. He did so inside the House of Representatives. That's right. This man who supposedly believed in an eternal wall of separation between church and state regularly attended church services inside Congress. The church services were presided over by every Protestant denomination. And this was really Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state – meaning no establishment of a state sect."
    (more)
  • Tennessean 2012/02/28 20:01:57
    Tennessean
    +2
    IMHO, the seperation of church and state is not only to protect the government from adopting a state religion, but to protect religion from government interference.
  • Grandbrother 2012/02/28 19:48:45
    Grandbrother
    Why is it that right wing extremists insist that separation of church and state is "fictitious"? Or lie about the government interfering in what churches teach? Or lie about Sharia being allowed to override the Constitution?
  • lee 2012/02/28 19:28:34
    lee
    +4
    you are full of it.. and you can take your theology back indoors where it belongs.
  • RJ~PWCM... lee 2012/02/28 21:48:04
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    Right. EXACTLY like it was in the USSR.
  • lee RJ~PWCM... 2012/02/28 22:23:22
    lee
    don't think they even let you have it then... but I could be wrong.. .never lived in Russia
  • RJ~PWCM... lee 2012/02/28 22:25:10
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    Not officially, but they looked the other way as long as it was "kept indoors", as you advocate.
  • lee RJ~PWCM... 2012/02/28 22:46:51
    lee
    as long as I can look the other way... then my rights to NOT be part of your religion are satisfied.
  • Tink123 lee 2012/02/29 03:19:25
    Tink123
    +2
    That's a pretty interesting position... "back indoors where it belongs."

    You know, the same has been said to gay couples... take your gender "back indoors where it belongs." The same has been said to biracial couples - take your relationship "back indoors where it belongs." The same has been said to women - take your feminism "back indoors where it belongs."

    I'm not saying you're a bigot - only pointing out that this is not an unfamiliar position. People have rights, those rights are limited ONLY, by the equal rights of others. The "free exercise thereof" has no indoor / outdoor limitation just as gender, association and choice have no indoor / outdoor limitation. I see no reason why we all can't share the outdoors. ;)

    We are guaranteed the free exercise of our rights - we're not guaranteed that we'll never encounter something we find irritating or even offensive. This is the essence of the "live and let live" motto.
  • lee Tink123 2012/02/29 17:25:33
    lee
    +1
    you're right. I was over stating it.

    trying to push back against a theocracy will do that to a person.

    I am humbled by your words.
  • Tink123 lee 2012/02/29 21:19:28 (edited)
    Tink123
    +2
    I figured you were over stating and didn't really mean that, that's precisely why I pointed it out to you. It's fine to blurt out over the internet, but not the kind of thing you can take back once it's been said to someone you care about - even if you don't mean it like that. Wasn't trying to shame you, truly wasn't - just pointing out how it sounds and only because I knew you could appreciate that. ;)
  • Dave Tink123 2012/03/02 11:41:44
    Dave
    +1
    Very well put!
  • Tink123 Dave 2012/03/02 16:00:12
    Tink123
    +2
    Thanks =)
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/02/28 19:24:42
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +5
    That's because the liberals want to destroy religion completely. They will have no God but Marx. Notice: I said Marx, not "reason." For they are *not* rational. Their politics is just as mystical as they accuse us of being.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/28 19:39:57
    lee
    +1
    yes we want to destroy religion completely.... wtf?

    liberals, in case you don't know any (and I doubt you do), could not possibly care LESS what you believe in your heart or in your head about how things work or why we are here.

    what we care about is when you try to force that onto anyone else by creating some kind of test or judgment on those who do not share your particular warpage.

    just let ppl believe what they want... how hard is that?
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/28 20:13:52
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    Here is what gives the lie to your position: to you, the only alternative to a system that, as you put it, "forces religion on people," is to forbid religious practice completely. It is neither news nor secret to me that you believe that all religious people are deluded, and you're coming to take us away, ha-haaa.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/28 21:47:44
    lee
    +1
    you might look good in a white jacket....never know.

    so, how could not caring possibly be the same as forbidding practice... practice whatever you want... just don't interfere with my right to not practice.

    besides, its funny... the only one's I hear saying they want to forbid someone from practice are those on the right when it comes to Islam.
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/28 22:33:56
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Hah! You *say* you don't care. And yet if a student says grace before eating, you're the first to yank him out of his chair and send him to the school's psychiatric counselor. Don't tell me.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/28 22:47:42
    lee
    why should I care if a student says words over his/her food before they eat?
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/28 23:48:05
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Because he's worshiping God, not the State that is your God.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/29 00:33:48 (edited)
    lee
    I don't know that. He could be saying to himself "i promise myself if I eat this hoho, i will ride my bike to school and back 5 times this week"

    what do I care.

    and I don't have or need a god.
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/29 02:24:39
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Well, maybe you can explain why a certain school principal, who caught a boy saying grace before his meal in the cafeteria, yanked him out of his seat and slapped him with detention for doing that. This principal so acted in specific fear of the ACLU. The notion is that absolutely any expression of faith in a public school bespeaks an establishment of religion.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/29 17:26:24
    lee
    he's a nut job and should be fired.

    was it your school district... you can vote on that you know.
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/29 18:45:20
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    That case came up years ago; the Rutherford Institute handled it. Guess what: not only was he not fired, but the boy involved was PUNISHED and told in no uncertain terms NEVER TO SAY GRACE BEFORE FOOD OR BREATHE ANOTHER WORD OF PRAYER WHILE IN SCHOOL, SO LONG AS HE WAS ENROLLED.
  • lee Temlako... 2012/02/29 18:58:00
    lee
    so why do you blame this on ALL liberals?

    clearly an isolated case of some wrong headed ppl... assuming your telling of the story is accurate.
  • Temlako... lee 2012/02/29 19:31:50
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    Because the mind-set behind that punishment, and those orders, is typical. "Isolated case"? Tell me another one. That is right out of the playbooks of American Atheists and the ACLU.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/17 23:10:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals