Re: Church & State

More | Report Post

Actualy you make a very valid point. But the problem is, in this day
and age. When you make a point such as yours. You have to have
somthing to point to to back it up. Other wise it will get beat like a
dead horse.

On 7/11/05, Frank wrote:
> The way I see it, there is no doubt that the founding fathers
> intended that the government be guided by a widely accepted set of
> moral values that would keep it from becoming corrupt. The
> persecution experienced in England compelled them to offer
> protection for any church from the state, however, there was never
> intent to protect the state from church. Since the only way to
> have a successful society that, for the most part, governs itself;
> that society has to rely on some base of morality... otherwise,
> that society will inevitably degenerate and dissolve. This is
> hard to argue when you sit back and think on the last 40 years or
> so, and how a decline in values has harmed our social fabric. The
> future of our country are being raised on average less refined,
> less civilized, less intelligent, more obnoxious, less
> independent, less honorable... you get the idea... I doubt anyone
> can say they don't see more (by more I mean both in number, and
> intensity) disrespectful, ill-mannered, unattended children
> running about than say 15-20 years ago... (and not just because of
> population increase). Thats my 1.5 cents (I leave out the other
> half cent, since I've probably bored most of you by now), thanks
> for the forum. :)