Quantcast

Whatever Happened To Separation Of Church And State?

ProudProgressive 2012/03/25 19:18:59
Whatever Happened To Separation Of Church And State?
March 24, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
– The First Amendment

One of my closest friends is a born again Christian. She and I have very different beliefs. What's beautiful is that we can discuss our differences without getting into an argument. Neither one of us tries to force the other into our way of thinking. We agree to disagree with each other and we both realize that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom.

Rick Santorum and many other members of the GOP on the other hand, want to force their Christianity on America, the melting pot. Why should a Jewish person, a Buddhist or a person who doesn't follow any kind of organized religion have to live under laws that are dictated by the Catholic church? Even Obama has to make sure everyone knows he's a Christian in order to be more accepted as president.


Gov. Rick Scott of Florida announced on his Facebook Page on Friday, March 23, that he signed and approved legislation SB 98, allowing prayer in public schools taking effect on July 1. Prayer isn't a bad thing but it crosses the line when put in a public institution. This is something that is sure to challenged as unconstitutional.

Recently in Oklahoma, The Education Committee of the State House of Representatives voted 9-7 to pass a bill to teach "intelligent design" in schools. It is interesting to note that Oklahoma is a religiously conservative state.

Other states like Texas have successfully de-funded Planned Parenthood because the religious right wants everyone to believe they are abortion mills when in fact abortions are only 3% of the services they provide.

Mandatory ultrasound laws have already been passed in seven states and are being considered in at least another eighteen states

I have heard private citizens (a member of my family who supports the Tea Party) complain that Christmas trees aren't allowed in public schools. They make the claim that the founding fathers couldn't foresee where things in this country would go in the long run and therefore the laws should be changed. But how would this person feel if Menorahs were in all the classrooms during Hanukkah and children of all different faiths were forced to light a candle to observe the Jewish holiday? I'm quite sure they would be very angry and running to their local congressman. The ones who don't want this country to thrive on diversity refuse to see the difference and become incredibly defiant when this question is posed. Rather than trying to be understanding, godly and non-judgmental, they do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This country is not nor was it EVER MEANT TO BE ruled by any one religion. Why the right thinks they can win with this strategy is beyond reasonable thinking.

>It's clear that the rich want all the power. They're using their massive wealth to prey upon the fears of people and they are using religion as a vehicle to make people feel like there is no place for God in our society. They want to create a new society where the majority have no rights and it's scary. It's happened in other countries but there's a difference that works to the benefit of those who wish to remain a melting pot. Throughout America's history, we have lived in a free society where we make our own choices. We fight for equality for all. It's not a perfect system and we still have many problems that we need to remedy. Ultimately, as a whole, we have been privileged to make most of our own choices and it's hard to imagine an America where the masses lay down and accept a one-sided religious agenda from only a small portion of the population.

You have the right to follow any religion you wish. That's a beautiful thing. You have the right choose the political party you feel serves you and the entire country's best interests. You also still have the right to sit back and do nothing as the GOP takes away your freedom of everything.

What will you choose?

Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/24/whatever-h...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

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

  • Doug Indeap 2012/03/31 20:34:56
    Doug Indeap
    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
  • YouSirName 2012/03/27 20:43:16
    YouSirName
    From the Texas Constitution: "nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

    Sounds like establishment of religion to me.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/27 01:03:25
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    BS, all of the Republicans are PRO religious freedom, it is the Democrats who are the Socialists who want to force things on everybody.
  • Brian T... WhereIs... 2012/03/27 05:21:20
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +1
    You are a smart girl!!!!
  • CaptnSassy 2012/03/27 00:57:18
    CaptnSassy
    +1
    I am a teacher and I ALWAYS put up a Christmas tree. I'm agnostic but love Christmas season. I invite my student's to bring in any decorations they would like to add. We have a class discussion on what ever gets brought in and put up. But then in Jan, it becomes a Birthday tree, Feb. Valentines, March St. Pats and then a Thank Goodness It's Almost Over Tree.
  • Brian T... CaptnSassy 2012/03/27 05:20:11
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +1
    We need more teachers like you.
  • relic 2012/03/26 22:36:29
    relic
    Now, now... stay calm until they get there.
  • The Electrician 2012/03/26 21:18:01
    The Electrician
    I dunno, ask the RWNJ's if they understand what it means. They believe that the Bible trumps the Constitution, they've still got some "growing up" to do.
  • Herb 2012/03/26 21:13:59 (edited)
    Herb
    +4
    for the last time, THERE IS NO "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS! or constitution.


    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 fo...&






























































































    &&















    &&





















































    for the last time, THERE IS NO "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS! or constitution.


    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)
  • Fred 2012/03/26 21:13:45
    Fred
    +2
    PeePee .... you know this is all BS and yet you post it. Im a person of faith that does not force my believes on others . I dont get the impression that Santorum or any other canidate do either. Even when Pat Robinson ran I wasnt offended by him. I wouldnt be offended if a muslim ran for president if he could get the goverment out of the red/sewer
  • RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/26 21:04:26
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

    Which word don't you understand? I'll explain it to you.
  • ally 2012/03/26 14:42:31
    ally
    The constitution, as we knew it, doesn't exist. Not only the conservative congress, and governors, but the very people we depend on to make the laws in this country- SCOTUS. They have been skirting it and allowing their own biases to be their bases for ruling.

    My question has always been, if our presidents are scrutinized to obey the constitution, why not them?
  • RJ~PWCM... ally 2012/03/26 21:05:00
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

    Which word don't you understand? I'll explain it to you.
  • Tony 2012/03/26 14:26:19
    Tony
    +3
    for the last time, THERE IS NO "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
    What it says is that the Congress will not ESTABLISH a state religion or prevent anyone from practicing their religion.
  • voice_matters 2012/03/26 13:51:47
    voice_matters
    another ignorant lib that has no idea what speperation of church and state is. but hey we all know that libs are just so full of hate they never care to read or follow facts
  • 9th of 9 2012/03/26 12:22:35
    9th of 9
    +3
    There never was a separation. Hence the 10 commandments on the supreme court doors. 10 commandments on the supreme court doors
  • D D 2012/03/26 11:30:35 (edited)
    D D
    +3
    give me a break with all this crying over separation of church and state. People cry about it when it has anything to do with Christianity,. When it is ever about any other religion rules of separation of church and state do not apply. There is a name for it, "Selective Secularism".

    Public schools take children on filed trips to mosques. Actual Islamic workbooks given to public school students to complete. If it were looking up verses in the bible or field trips to synagogues or churches you and others would be screaming all over the place.

    Cincinnati-area school set aside a room for Muslim students during lunch periods

    Lewiston School in Maine- a designated prayer room so one Muslim student can pray in school. Again, separation of Mosque and State does not apply

    If you want separation of church and state you need to fight it 100%. No religions tolerated.

    http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

    byi meio
  • BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/26 07:47:42
    BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Do you want this over there? your Pres. probably does muslims praying in london muslims praying in london https://lh3.googleusercontent... muslims praying in london
  • D D BUCCANE... 2012/03/26 10:33:14 (edited)
    D D
    +2
    Already happening. This is in New York City.

    rtu

    eyi

    And again

    nio
  • BUCCANE... D D 2012/03/26 10:43:18
    BUCCANEER~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Try going to Saudi and hold Christian prayer meetings in public and see what happens!
  • ProudPr... BUCCANE... 2012/03/26 11:24:00
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    The Saudis don't have a Constitution. We do.
  • ProudPr... BUCCANE... 2012/03/26 11:23:38
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Darn that old Constitution!
  • RJ~PWCM... ProudPr... 2012/03/26 21:06:52
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    I'm glad to see you quote that part of it. Most libs ignore it.

    Naturally, then, you agree that the "free exercise" applies to a child who wishes to pray in school.
  • Brian Tristan MacQuillan 2012/03/26 07:20:54
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +3
    It is clear you have made up your mind on all these matters, and that Christians, pushing Christianity is THE PROBLEM in the United States. So, I will refute each claim you have made with an explanation.

    Rick Santorum's personal beliefs are not the same thing as his political record. He does not seem to understand that, and so I would not expect you to understand that. The man was my senator and released his book (which should have been titled "Everything I Think About Everything") a year before he would be up for reelection. That was a politically stupid move, as he had a voting record to run on, and most of his opinions have little to do with the job he had as senator. It is quite obvious he is not going anywhere in the primary, and that is because he is not very smart politically. The time he did spend in elected office does not hold any examples of him forcing his religion down anyone's throat. In fact, since he was defeated in his reelection bid for the Senate, nobody has replaced him in the area of defending the most helpless among us, both people, and animals. He was a champion for disabled people, and those most at risk, and he was also a champion for the ethical and humane treatment of animals.

    The Catholic Church is not imposing its teachings on anyone, bu...























    It is clear you have made up your mind on all these matters, and that Christians, pushing Christianity is THE PROBLEM in the United States. So, I will refute each claim you have made with an explanation.

    Rick Santorum's personal beliefs are not the same thing as his political record. He does not seem to understand that, and so I would not expect you to understand that. The man was my senator and released his book (which should have been titled "Everything I Think About Everything") a year before he would be up for reelection. That was a politically stupid move, as he had a voting record to run on, and most of his opinions have little to do with the job he had as senator. It is quite obvious he is not going anywhere in the primary, and that is because he is not very smart politically. The time he did spend in elected office does not hold any examples of him forcing his religion down anyone's throat. In fact, since he was defeated in his reelection bid for the Senate, nobody has replaced him in the area of defending the most helpless among us, both people, and animals. He was a champion for disabled people, and those most at risk, and he was also a champion for the ethical and humane treatment of animals.

    The Catholic Church is not imposing its teachings on anyone, but the federal government via the Obama Administration is imposing its ideology on the Catholic Church. Churches have provided everything from food to medical care in the United States since its very beginnings, so the only reason to go after a religious organization in regards to health care is that it stands in the way of the great scheme of "Obamacare". It has nothing to do with religion, women's rights, or anything else, only the great control "Obamacare" will provide to the bloated Federal Government over people's lives.

    President Obama has said he is a Christian, and that is pretty much that. Does it make a difference? Perhaps. About 85% of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, and it would not surprise me if some of them would not vote for someone who was not a Christian. Some people would not vote for a woman, a Democrat, or a Republican, just to cite a few examples. That is just kind of the way it is, and I do not know what more to say about it. Should the Mind Police reeducate the people who would not vote for a ______ kind of person?

    Prayer in public schools has been a hot topic since it was taken out of public schools. Again this does not surprise me. I think most people thought it was okay to have a moment of silence for students to pray if they wished, but most people just let no prayer in public schools be the way it was. The reason it is being brought back is exactly what you are saying, to lead to a court challenge. Most people are sick and tired of Christmas being edited out in public schools, the Ten Commandments being taken down in public places, and similar things like that. This is about push back against the secular folks who want religion out of the public square, in other words to have a "freedom from religion". Secular folks are wrong on this one, and have gone way past the line, and so prayer may very well find its way back into public schools. For the record, the both houses of Congress have prayer, and the president still closes his speeches with God Bless America. Thank God!

    The "intelligent design" vs. "evolution" debate is easily solved, and that is to teach both, and perhaps even teach various creation stories from various cultures. Again the reason "intelligent design" is being pushed in "religiously conservative" places is because the "evolution" theory is being taught as absolutely proven science, and some people do not believe that. Again, it is push back against the push of the evolutionists who want to impose their position on others. The Darwin, Marx, Freud minset can not have any competing thoughts. Whereas, plenty of Christians are fine with evolution if the equation includes God.

    Abortions are a very controversial, and if you look at polling data taken on the issue you can see how polarizing it is as an issue. Even more than some people who are pro-choice do not support abortion after the first trimester, period. Planned Parenthood is an organization that is likewise controversial. If all Planned Parenthood did was provide health services, and contraception, then it would not be very controversial at all, but it does provide abortions, and that is the kicker. Again mandatory ultrasounds are push back against the pro-choice agenda that many people think has gone way to far.

    As far as Christmas goes... it is a Federal Holiday signed into law by President U. S. Grant, and Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ. The foundations of the United States are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, and the Holy Day being a Federal Holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus for that reason. A person can subscribe to Judeo-Christian philosophy (morals, ethics, and so on) and not be religiously Jewish or religiously a Christian. And I would go as far to say that if your uphold what the United States is about, then you support Judeo-Christian philosophy. The push to have religious symbols of Christmas removed from the public square is just another overstep of the secularists, and has brought its own form of push back. Most people in the United States celebrate Christmas (around 92%), and as I have pointed out previously only 85% or so identify themselves as Christians, so that means there are a large number of people who celebrate Christmas who are not Christians, as an American holiday. Also, nobody is forcing them to do so. Anyway you slice it, Christmas is a Federal Holiday, and a Nativity should be able to occupy any court house lawn where the local community wants it.

    The United States of America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but that does not mean you need to be Jewish or Christian, it simply means that that is what principles enlightened the people who put together the framework and foundation of our country. Those principles were not Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other philosophy. Also, other western thought was a part of the creation of our countries framework, but not as much as the Judeo-Christian principles. Those very principles protect everyone, regardless of creed, color, or gender. The argument that principles based on secularism would provide the same protections of our freedoms is without merit, for there has never been such a nation. The very basis that everyone's individual rights are granted by the Creator, and can not be taken away is so central to our country that it can not be changed. Of course that very thing stands in the way of progressives getting the control over the people via the government to usher in their Utopian dream, which is by its very nature anathema to the most very basic principles the United States is about.

    The people who want power to control people are the progressives. They want their agenda pushed and pushed, directly, under the radar, by fiat, however they do not much care, just so that the Utopian dream of social engineering, and control of everything is achieved. Are there people outside of that construct who want something similar? Certainly. There are people in government, and business who do not give a hoot about the sovereignty about the United States, or the individual rights of its people. But it is again all about some grand scheme, every time, and in order to begin to achieve that scheme things need to be changed radically. The scheme of the United States is individual freedom, and that comes before government, and is not to be impeded by government. Any other scheme that curtails individual liberties is anathema to the most very basic principles of the United States.

    The public square has always had religion in on the discussion, religion however does not run the government, and the government does not run religious institutions. That is spelled out in clear language in the Constitution. There is however, no such animal as "freedom from religion", this is a progressive construct. That church steeple you can see on the highway is a public expression of religion in architecture, and it is protected under the Constitution.

    I am most amused you find the GOP as the threat to your freedoms as it is the Obama Administration that is trampling all over religious freedom with the mandate in "Obamacare" that calls for the Catholic Church to provide contraception expenses in the health insurance offered. What might be next, will kosher slaughter be mandated out of existence? Some countries have done just that. Furthermore, "Obamacare" tramples all over people's freedoms, but I am sure you support that. The Obama Administration's long list of acts, executive orders, and policies that trample all over freedoms is perhaps without equal, as I think it surpasses the whole of both LBJ's and FDR's Administrations.

    People who are concerned about individual freedom want the government to back off, want organizations headquartered in a completely different community, typically a different state, to stay out of their local business. Federalism leaves most of the control to the states, not the Federal Government, yet we continue down the road to a bigger and more invasive Federal Government. Why? Because certain interests want control, and do not want individual citizens to have the individual freedom they are suppose to.

    Everything you describe is nothing more than a push back against the continued progressive liberal onslaught against American's individual freedoms. The reason it is happening is because of the progressive liberal push, or as they say in physics, every action has and equal and opposite reaction.

    I choose individual freedom. I choose for our government to recognize God. I choose for a Federal Holiday to be celebrated as Christmas, not some watered down christmas that ignores what the Federal Holiday commemorates. I choose for human life to be respected and protected. I choose to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I choose to call the progressive liberal onslaught on the Constitution what it is, anathema to the very DNA of the United States of American.
    (more)
  • ProudPr... Brian T... 2012/03/26 11:29:44
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    You're way too verbose to bother pointing out everything you've got wrong, so let's just limit it to a few. The Catholic Church, with the assistance of the Right Wing, attempted to force people who happen to work for them to accept their view of the Bible, not their own. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Obama Administration successfully protected the religious freedom of their employees. They didn't impose anything. They prevented the imposition of religion on individual citizens.

    One other thing - "intelligent design" is not the other side of the coin from evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact based on well over a century of comprehensive scientific exploration and confirmation. "Intelligent design" is in no way science, but rather an entirely faith based opinion which not only has no evidence to support it, but rejects any attempt to quantify it. To teach them as equivalents destroys the very concept of science. Any attempt to teach creationism in schools represents the imposition of one religious view on an entire school full of students. The only place where it might be appropriate would be in a class on comparative religion, and only if it is clearly taught as a belief, and not as anything approaching factual reality.

    I choose individual freedom. You seem to want to deprive people of that freedom entirely. Fortunately for me, the Constitution is on my side.
  • Brian T... ProudPr... 2012/03/26 18:29:36
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +2
    "People who happen to work for" the Roman Catholic Church, and/or its ancillaries are well aware of Roman Catholic teaching regarding contraception, and abortions. The "people who happen to work for" the Roman Catholic Church did so by their own free will, nobody forced them to work for the Church. If a person worked for a Jewish Community Center, or a Islamic Community Center would they expect those places to serve ham for lunch? Of course not. The religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church is what is being violated, not anyone who works for the Church. Case in point, any of the people who work for the Church can go out and buy their own contraception, or have an abortion, and the Church does not stand in the way of those things. Yet, the Federal Government wants to tell the Church to furnish for its employees something the Church is firmly against. It is clear who is imposing its will here, and it is the government.

    The origin of life can be explained a various number of different ways. Most Christians do not have a problem with the concept of evolution, but some do and see creationism as how it all happened. The vast majority of Muslims patently reject evolution as some western scheme to destroy Islam. There are a wide variety of viewpoints as to the origins of...



    "People who happen to work for" the Roman Catholic Church, and/or its ancillaries are well aware of Roman Catholic teaching regarding contraception, and abortions. The "people who happen to work for" the Roman Catholic Church did so by their own free will, nobody forced them to work for the Church. If a person worked for a Jewish Community Center, or a Islamic Community Center would they expect those places to serve ham for lunch? Of course not. The religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church is what is being violated, not anyone who works for the Church. Case in point, any of the people who work for the Church can go out and buy their own contraception, or have an abortion, and the Church does not stand in the way of those things. Yet, the Federal Government wants to tell the Church to furnish for its employees something the Church is firmly against. It is clear who is imposing its will here, and it is the government.

    The origin of life can be explained a various number of different ways. Most Christians do not have a problem with the concept of evolution, but some do and see creationism as how it all happened. The vast majority of Muslims patently reject evolution as some western scheme to destroy Islam. There are a wide variety of viewpoints as to the origins of life, and teaching about it should reflect that. There is no harm in presenting evolution theory beside other theories of how life began and changed to what we see today. If you think that is the case, then you are just as bad as the Fundamental Christians who want only literal Biblical text taught as science.

    Scientific data is what it is, but it is not absolute, it changes as we collect more data. DNA has absolutely redefined the field of Anthropology to the point that most of what was supposed to be fact has been stood on its head. Here is an example of science fo you, a man that worked on the Manhattan Project was given the choice to go back to school and complete his degree after the war. But he would have gone back to Columbia only to learn science that he had just completely disproved during the Manhattan Project, which seemed like a big waste of time to him. So he went on to become a recording engineer at Atlantic Records, and pioneered multitrack recording, and produced everyone from Ray Charles to the Allman Brother Band, from Thelonious Monk to Lynyrd Skynyrd. The man's name was Tom Dowd.

    Individual freedom is in the Constitution and is on nobody's side, it stands all on its own. It is your side however, that seeks to tear down, and redefine the Constitution and its protection of individual freedoms, so you can build a "better world" and a progressive Utopia. That is not going to happen though, not in America at least. Americans want to have choices, Americans want to have freedom. If you doubt that, just look at the wide variety of clothes people wear, or the wide variety of cars people drive. Choices is what America is all about, and that goes for who you work for, or how you view the origin of life. Your call is your call, but do not try and shove it down someone else's throat, and sidestep the Constitution by declaring "religious freedom" as you impose government mandates on the Roman Catholic Church. Do not try to shove Darwin, Marx, or Freud as the end all and be all down the throats of people who dissent. There is a balance to be struck, and then various viewpoints can be taught alongside each other. Education is about choices, it is not indoctrination.
    (more)
  • Herb Brian T... 2012/03/26 21:22:24
    Herb
    Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe?















    Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation.


    Why has evolution become so widely accepted? Why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed?

    Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and a reliable account of our origins. But now almost the opposite is true.

    The Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universe—and our human origins—is forbidden. At the same time, criticism of the theory of evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressed in academic and scientific circles.

    In this free Bible study aid booklet, Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? , we examine the foundational premises of evolution. We consider the evidence evolutionists cite to support the theory. Perhaps most important, we look at the scientific facts evolutionists don't discuss in public—for reasons that will become clear.

    You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll examine the evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.




    But what is behind the debate? How did an ...








    Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe?















    Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation.


    Why has evolution become so widely accepted? Why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed?

    Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and a reliable account of our origins. But now almost the opposite is true.

    The Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universe—and our human origins—is forbidden. At the same time, criticism of the theory of evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressed in academic and scientific circles.

    In this free Bible study aid booklet, Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? , we examine the foundational premises of evolution. We consider the evidence evolutionists cite to support the theory. Perhaps most important, we look at the scientific facts evolutionists don't discuss in public—for reasons that will become clear.

    You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll examine the evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.




    But what is behind the debate? How did an unproven theory gain such wide acceptance? How did alternate theories come to be summarily dismissed without a hearing? How did the biblical account of the origin of the universe and man lose so much credibility? The roots of the battle between evolution and the Bible go back centuries . (Page 8)

    Many passages show us that Jesus Christ and His apostles fully accepted the Genesis account of the creation. Jesus talked about "the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19
    ; see also Matthew 24:21
    ) . (Page 9)

    At times various fossil species have been presented as firm proof of evolution at work. Perhaps the most famous is the supposed evolution of the horse as presented in many biology textbooks. But is this portrayal really what it is claimed to be? (Page 26)

    Can the Bible explain the fossil record, evidence pointing to an ancient earth and divine creation at the same time? Yes, it can. We don't know the details of what happened before man's time. But Jesus Christ has assured us that when He returns "there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light" (Mark 4:22
    ). (Page 70)
    (more)
  • Brian T... Herb 2012/03/27 05:18:22
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    And that is a very good summation of what Fundamentalist Christians, who take the Bible literally believe. And I do not see any reason why when discussing the origins of life that it can not be presented, along with the theory of evolution, and intelligent design. My point is very simple, more information about what people believe is good. To only present one of the things people believe leaves people ignorant about other explanations. People who are presented with many points of view can make up their own minds.
  • RJ~PWCM... ProudPr... 2012/03/26 21:09:33
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    "The Catholic Church, with the assistance of the Right Wing, attempted to force people who happen to work for them to accept their view of the Bible, "

    Flat-out wrong. The church simply doesn't want to be forced to do something it has NEVER done before, that is against one of its core tenets.


    "That is a clear violation of the First Amendment."

    Absurdly wrong. The "first amendment" doesn't apply to the Catholic Church.
  • TheTruth1313 2012/03/26 05:44:16
    TheTruth1313
    +1
    I will only say this, separation of church and state was one of the main principals on which our founding fathers based the constitution. However, BOTH the left and the right have sought to circumvent this with their own selfish agendas.
  • mich52 2012/03/26 05:32:11
  • A Lionheart 2012/03/26 02:22:42
    A Lionheart
    I'll be against the religious take over of America.
  • Thor American EXPAT n New G... 2012/03/26 02:14:11
    Thor American EXPAT n New Guinea
    +4
    You asked "What ever happened to Separation of Church and State?.
    That's simple......Progressive Liberals.

    In their quest to make man his own god to establish no absolutes. To make their own desires and fetishes judgement free. They first have to make world where there is no sense of right or wrong.

    The only way to do that is to eliminate God from the equation. If there is no God there is no supreme judgement.

    First you start to subtlely place question of Where did we come from? Of course they already know wher they want to take the conversation.

    We evolved from some cosmic accident.

    Then somehow morphed into living slime.
    Then into simple celled creatures.
    Then into some form of animal.
    Then another type of animal.
    Then someplace in the process became mammals.
    Then those became primates.
    Then those became people.

    But there was a major stumbling block for their goal.

    People were being taught MORALS.

    People believed in an all mighty God and believed there would be a price to pay for their depravities. That simply would not do.

    So God had to be distroyed in their hearts and minds.

    Adults would be to hard to change. They were raised with values. However if the Progressives could indoctrinate the children. Then the Progressive liberals could get a foothold.

    They went t...
























    You asked "What ever happened to Separation of Church and State?.
    That's simple......Progressive Liberals.

    In their quest to make man his own god to establish no absolutes. To make their own desires and fetishes judgement free. They first have to make world where there is no sense of right or wrong.

    The only way to do that is to eliminate God from the equation. If there is no God there is no supreme judgement.

    First you start to subtlely place question of Where did we come from? Of course they already know wher they want to take the conversation.

    We evolved from some cosmic accident.

    Then somehow morphed into living slime.
    Then into simple celled creatures.
    Then into some form of animal.
    Then another type of animal.
    Then someplace in the process became mammals.
    Then those became primates.
    Then those became people.

    But there was a major stumbling block for their goal.

    People were being taught MORALS.

    People believed in an all mighty God and believed there would be a price to pay for their depravities. That simply would not do.

    So God had to be distroyed in their hearts and minds.

    Adults would be to hard to change. They were raised with values. However if the Progressives could indoctrinate the children. Then the Progressive liberals could get a foothold.

    They went to the public schools. BUT........They met resistence there from God fearing educators.

    So they turned to the courts. Finding sympathetic judges. Selling there plan to remove God from the public eye as. A THEORY. What harm could a THEORY do? A look into the way something might take place. We'll teach this as a THEORY but we wont deny you your beliefs.

    While in the colleges Progressives were teaching EVOLUTION. Man came from slime and monkeys.

    Then the progressives went back to the courts and demanded God be removed from the schools.

    The Judges being college educated where evolution was fed to them daily sided with them. God was then removed from the public schools. Then the public square.

    In short the Government and Progressives wanted no absolutes no moral judgements. Keep your religion inside your house. However don't go teaching it to your kids inside that house either.

    Keep your religion in your churches. Not in the public discourse.

    BUT.......That still wasn't good enough for the Progressives and the Liberals. Now they want to FORCE their Godless agenda into the churches. IN FACT TELLING THE CHURCHES HOW THEY HAVE TO PRACTICE THEIR FAITH.

    Tell ing the churches "Hey we dont care if you dont believe in this or that.

    YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE WE SAY SO".

    So What happened to the Separation of church and state?

    The state didn't follow the First Ammendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

    The state began restricting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. When it came to religion.
    So it was actually the state that overstepped not the churches.
    (more)
  • DuncanONeil 2012/03/26 02:08:26
    DuncanONeil
    +4
    Being as you identify yourself as a Progressive I suspect your understanding of the First Amendment is flawed.
    "Rick Santorum and many other members of the GOP on the other hand, want to force their Christianity on America," is patently false.
    "as the GOP takes away your freedom of everything." is also patently false.
  • ProudPr... DuncanO... 2012/03/26 11:34:34
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    It's all true. We saw how the Catholic Church attempted to force their view of Christianity on employees, depriving them of their own free choice. The GOP has tried to impose their religious opinion about birth control on women across the country. For decades the Right Wing has tried to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies based on religious opinion.

    Believe me, I know more about the First Amendment and what it means than you ever will.
  • Thor Am... ProudPr... 2012/03/26 12:35:18
    Thor American EXPAT n New Guinea
    +2
    And there is the Liberal / Progressive coming out.

    {Believe me, I know more about the First Amendment and what it means than you ever will.}

    That's a pretty bold statement. How can you be sure about that?

    "We saw how the Catholic Church attempted to force their view of Christianity on employees"

    No what you saw was the church NOT WANTING TO PAY FOR IT.
    They never said the little slut couldn't buy her own BC and screw every guy in America. They just didn't want to finance it.
    Nor do we believe Tax dollars should go to murdering babies.

    You sure as hell don't know a lot about the GOP.

    Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

    As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification—eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

    Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment ente...



    And there is the Liberal / Progressive coming out.

    {Believe me, I know more about the First Amendment and what it means than you ever will.}

    That's a pretty bold statement. How can you be sure about that?

    "We saw how the Catholic Church attempted to force their view of Christianity on employees"

    No what you saw was the church NOT WANTING TO PAY FOR IT.
    They never said the little slut couldn't buy her own BC and screw every guy in America. They just didn't want to finance it.
    Nor do we believe Tax dollars should go to murdering babies.

    You sure as hell don't know a lot about the GOP.

    Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

    As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification—eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

    Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment entered the Constitution August 26, 1920, after Tennessee, the last state to do so, ratified the Amendment

    The Civil War was waged under a Republican president in order to abolish slavery and protect the unity of the United States.

    In 1856, only five years prior to the outbreak of that war, the Republican Party was founded and its main motivation was the abolition of slavery. The Republican Party fought against the Democratic Party, which opposed equal rights for blacks
    (more)
  • DuncanO... ProudPr... 2012/03/26 22:44:57
    DuncanONeil
    "We saw how the Catholic Church attempted to force their view of Christianity on employees,"
    ..Not true! Heck they even let non-Catholics attend their schools, where they are not required to take the religion class.

    "The GOP has tried to impose their religious opinion about birth control on women across the country."
    ..It's not about birth control (which is NOT health care), it is about a violation of the first amendment.

    "For decades the Right Wing has tried to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies based on religious opinion."
    ..Your opening proposition is false. Therefore the entire statement is false.

    "Believe me, I know more about the First Amendment and what it means than you ever will."
    ..If what we have seen here is YOUR understanding, then we know this is not true either.
  • Deere Guy ~POTL~PWCM~JL~PWC... 2012/03/26 01:40:35
    Deere Guy ~POTL~PWCM~JL~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    When I was a child in school we had morning devotion and a thought for the day....we also performed the pledge of Allegiance and sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic and God Bless America and I survived....This country was founded on Judah christian principles, and the word god is on our money and all over our government office buildings. Yet in the 60's the government banned prayer in public schools because of a secular progressive outcry that it was unconstitutional. Yes, we're supposed to be a melting pot for all peoples and their religions, yet after 235 years, we now have a secular progressive movement to ban the word "God" from our money, to do away with Christmas and Nativity scenes in private homes as well as all of the public venues. Yet they scream freedom of religion but ONLY for any religion EXCEPT Christianity.....This poll is nothing more than to destroy christianity in general and promote their own secular progressive ideaology. While our public schools have become so violent and non productive, we have to have police and sheriffs patroling them. Do you really think having morning devotion and a thought for the day was all that bad?.......Take a good look America.....We have been implementing liberal progressive and socialist ideaology for 40 years and look wher...
    When I was a child in school we had morning devotion and a thought for the day....we also performed the pledge of Allegiance and sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic and God Bless America and I survived....This country was founded on Judah christian principles, and the word god is on our money and all over our government office buildings. Yet in the 60's the government banned prayer in public schools because of a secular progressive outcry that it was unconstitutional. Yes, we're supposed to be a melting pot for all peoples and their religions, yet after 235 years, we now have a secular progressive movement to ban the word "God" from our money, to do away with Christmas and Nativity scenes in private homes as well as all of the public venues. Yet they scream freedom of religion but ONLY for any religion EXCEPT Christianity.....This poll is nothing more than to destroy christianity in general and promote their own secular progressive ideaology. While our public schools have become so violent and non productive, we have to have police and sheriffs patroling them. Do you really think having morning devotion and a thought for the day was all that bad?.......Take a good look America.....We have been implementing liberal progressive and socialist ideaology for 40 years and look where it has taken us....we're now a broke country from all of the socialist entitlement programs like SS, Medicare and Medicaid and now Obama Care that is only gonna finish breaking us. Entitlements can be good when you have everyone sharing in the cost. Unfortunately now we have 50% of the population that don't pay ANY income taxes, yet they continue to suck off the system. Maybe if we introduced a little GOD back in our public schools and discipline in our classrooms and accountability of our teachers AND parents, we might not need the police and sheriffs.....We must get back to the basic principles this country was founded on if we're to srvive as a free and prosperous society. To the Author, It's not the conservative policies that will take your freedoms.....it's your own warped secular progressive idealology that will push this country into total socialism and communism at worst.....
    (more)
  • A Lionh... Deere G... 2012/03/26 02:15:32
    A Lionheart
    +1
    "to do away with Christmas and Nativity scenes in private homes"
    FALSE
  • Deere G... A Lionh... 2012/03/26 02:19:13
    Deere Guy ~POTL~PWCM~JL~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    Being displayed in private yards YUP!!!!!!!!!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/16 19:42:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals