Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I read the first amendment for the first time after watching the gasps of the legal minds on television.

Well. First amendment was not written in latin or in Sanskrit. It is plain English. English is not my first language and the bleeding heart liberals should not blame me for finding literal meaning.

To my understanding there is no separation between church and the state, but a separation between congressional law making and the religion.

Say if I am taking TOEFL, GRE or something of that kind, if first amendment is the passage in the reading or listening comprehension, I would be selecting the answer that is not meaning
there is separation between church and state.

For that matter it is there and everywhere “In God We Trust”.

For people “In Weed We Trust” may definitely need to gasp. For Christine O’Donnell she got it right.

To me Supreme Court intepretation is unconstitutional because First Amendment prevents only Congress from enacting laws respecting a region or prohibiting a religion. First Amendment does not ban the religion from the government and therefore the removal of the Cross from College of William and Mary may be unconstituitional and Cross can be on the public grounds because it is not a law respecting religion as long as the public ground is not under the purview of congress.

College of William and Mary may be state institution and court interfering into States rights where in the First Amendment explicitly prohifits the prohibition of free expression of religion.

That the Founders properly refused to endorse any specific “state religion” — such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist, Lutheran or Episcopalian persuasion of Christianity, or Judaism, or Budhism or Islam — does not imply an endorsement or expectation of secularism or atheism. Several early states, including the State of Massachusetts, did have an “official” state religion; that was NOT prohibited (nor even discouraged) by the First Amendment. The ONLY prohibition was against federal alignment with any specific religious body because of the coercive nature of such an endorsement.

Leftists have made a cottage industry of belittling the intellectual capacity of anyone to the Right of Joe Stalin since before their “amiable dunce” allegations about Ronald Reagan — regardless of the comparative IQ deficiencies of the respective opponents of their targets. Even Barry Goldwater once complained to his running mate that “they’re (the pundits) only accusing LBJ of being a crook – they’re calling US stupid.”

Progressives/Liberals have almost hijacked this phrase and perverted its meaning. We must push back – HARD!

The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of was intended to protect Christianity, not government. In fact, it was so well understood that America is a Christian nation that there was a battle underway to decide which brand of Christianity would become the national religion…

In a letter dated September 23, 1800, addressed to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson shed more light on the clarity of his position:

“I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

As to keeping Christianity out of government, Jefferson was clear about that, too. He believed it was a part of his presidential duty to attend church regularly, and that is exactly what he did throughout his presidency.

Finally, I don’t think there could be any clearer evidence on the role of Christianity in our founding than in the selection of Dr. Benjamin Rush to head up the design and implementation of our national public education system..

Under his authority, the Bible was mandatory curriculum in our public schools, which were often held in – - – wait for it – - – CHURCHES!

So much for liberal interpretations on the issue.

to explain why you are right.

The problem lies in the rather pathetic way she explained her position.

Or, failed to explain it at all in a clear and forceful way which would have shut up the audience, Coons, and his teammates the “moderators.”

link?

The charming woman who was the face of the removal of prayer from school in the ’60s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

Right next to the abortion and the gay marriage amendments.

NEW POST:

IS JOY BEHAR REALLY A CLOSET LESBIAN?
http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-joy-behar-really-closet-lesbian.html

As Sect Rumsfelt said: “you fight your war with the army you have.” I would add: “not the army you are dreaming of.” There has never been, in my estimation, a perfect candidate; but I may yet run for something;)

It it any surprise that Christine O’Donnel has flaws? And just so you know, I’ve donated more money to her campaign than any other this year. What do we want? Do we want Sen. Castle back?

Sen. McCain wasn’t my first or second or third choice but I didn’t have to “hold my nose” to vote for him. And when I discussed his candidacy with others I didn’t preface my comments with the fact that I REALLY preferred someone else. To do so undercuts any support I could have given him. And I REALLY wanted him to win. In fact, I wish now that I could have done more, not less, to help him win.

I REALLY want Christine O’Donnel to win. Could we have scoured the Delaware landscape and found a better candidate? Maybe, but two weeks out from election day is too late to start and by constantly harping on “she isn’t the best candidate” aren’t we giving the argument to our opponent? Let’s fight to win, dammit.

I’d love to have a truce with you of faith. I could care less if you erect a 20ft tall cross anywhere you like as long as it’s privately funded (as everything should be be as loud and proud a Christian as you like as long as you do not infringe on the property rights of others. Use the liberty protected by our republic to worship as you see fit.

In return I’d like an end to the drug war and all other nanny state laws that prevent victimless crimes. Your communities and churches will determine your lifestyles and standards as my personal beliefs mold mine.

Everyone goes along to get along. The Republican party would make many inroads in the secular community if this approach was taken.

With O’Donnell almost 20 points down in the polls R’s & RS should just throw in the towel on her candidacy. Face it her “I’m not a witch” ad has done her in for voters in middle of the road Delaware. Concentrate on candidates where R’s have a good chance of winning, like Dudley in Oregon & Paul in Kentucky. Rove was right about her candidacy. IMHO.

I guess by wearing Nike sneakers, I’m “establishing” a sneaker company? Since when did establish mean to display, teach or allow.

http://restorationary.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/tear-down-that-wall/

Most people in the conservative and even some democrats that have been taking a look at this First Amendment issue with the seperation of church and state agree with O’Donnell
I certainly agree with here after reading much on the issue for the last two days. Of course what bothers me most about the far left on this issue, is that they are teaching our young impressionable children these things in school, along with their false version of history.

Print bibles, but also they built chapels on military bases and funded chaplains for the army the better to effect the “free exercise” of religion.

Not enough emphasis is placed on the ordinal importance of the liberties enumerated in the 1st A. After the strict prohibition against imposing a single set of religious beliefs, it sets forth the primary freedom — to express without restriction whatever the individual holds to be his most fundimental and significant beliefs regarding his life, for that’s what religion is. To have freedom to speak about everything except what is most important in your life is surely no freedom at all. To write, assemble or petition for good or just laws is surely limited if you are prohibited from expressing what leads you to consider them “good” or “just”.

As government extends its presence ever more into society through ownership and control, it is reversing the emphasis of the founders by placing more and more restrictions on the “free exercise” of religion. Just because the government “owns” schools, parks, post offices and court houses, as they “own” roads, it does not mean they are enforcing the ideas expressed therein any more than that they are endorsing every product carried on the road. The idea that government “allowing” the individual expression of religion is the same as government “enforcing” a particular religion is as phony as holding that a tax cut “costs” the government money.

There’s something wrong with a country that celebrates the prayer of Washington with his troops, but prohibits a coach from bowing his head while his team prays.

Google “Separation of Raunch and State.” Excellent! JonE