Re: Church & State

More | Report Post

You bring this up at a very good time. Since we now have a minority
mentality in this country. The word discrimination comes to mind. It is a
Federal crime to discriminate against a minority. So it seems our supreme
court judges are banking on this fact to undermine the majority rule. It's
not fair to discriminate against the minority. So i have a soloution for
that. In the next Presidental election, who ever wins the race to the
white house has to hand over the keys to the loser, it wouldn't be fair
that the loser got the minority vote. How ever assinine that sounds, is
how assinine this new B.S. is about the pledge and takng God out of this
country. Kruscheve said he would bury us. And the K.G.B. had their 100
year plan in place long before detant. The plan was and still is to
destroy us from within with out firing a shot. If we all have noticed
we're doing all the shot firing on our selves. Yep, it's been a down hill
slide since they took God out of the school system. I'm sure we'll
continue to slide into oblivion. Unless we the people start to do some big
changing in this great country of ours. Stamp out B.S. politics along with
it's members. Vote out all the old crap. And call for a change in the
judical, no more life time membership for supreme court justices. Thier
one of our biggest problems. Amen!

On 9/15/05, Anonymous wrote:
> I agree with Frank. "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."
>
> I would substitute church for "a Christian person" or "a Jewish person"
> or any other person. I believe that the word "establishment" is an
> important word to consider. In 1555 England returned to Roman
> Catholicism. Protestants were persecuted and about 300 were burned at
> the stake. People were forced because of the horrible consequences
> before them to worship/believe/exercise a certain religion. I'm not
> seeing any executions by the government because everyone isn't
> practicing "Christianity." There is no "establishment" of a religion
> in the United States.
>
> However, an angle of this discussion is often ignored. There are many
> decisions by the courts that are "prohibiting the free exercise" of
> religion, specifically Christianity or anyone other religion that
> professes there is a God...I would take a guess that about 90&37; of the
> world believes there is a God. Why is it that the majority always has
> to succumb to the minority these days? It defeats the purpose and
> benefits of being in the majority!
>
> To quote the great Abraham Lincoln our government is a “government of
> the people by the people for the people.” If about 80&37; of the United
> States is of the Judeo/Christian faith wouldn’t it stand to reason that
> you would see reflections of that in the government? I
> repeat…’reflections’, not establishment of… A federal judge just
> declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools
> unconstitutional. Is this not prohibiting my freedom of speech, my
> freedom to freely exercise my belief in God? I don’t remember being
> forced to say the pledge and there were many kids that did not when I
> was in school. We aren’t hanging kids in the school yard because they
> don’t recite the pledge. Why is it now unconstitutional to recite it?
> I believe that it is unconstitutional to make law that says I can’t.
>
> “It is increasingly clear that we are a nation at odds with ourselves
> and our history. On three separate occasions, the Supreme Court has
> ruled that America is a Christian nation. The Court’s 1892
> determination that ‘this is a Christian nation,’ was followed in 1931
> by a subsequent ruling that Americans are a ‘Christian people’ and,
> again in 1952, when Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court,
> said that ‘we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a
> Supreme Being.’ But today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, determined
> otherwise. That the complaint of one atheist could conceivably cause
> the Pledge of Allegiance to be removed from every school classroom in
> this nation is a violation of the fundamental principle of our
> Constitution. George Washington, the president of the Constitutional
> Convention, the Father of our country, and the first president of the
> United States, declared that principle when he said ‘the fundamental
> principle of our Constitution ... enjoins that the will of the majority
> shall prevail.’ The Founders knew that if an increasingly small
> minority was enabled to prevail, then democracy would be destroyed and
> should that number be reduced to one, we would be back in the same
> position that we were in under King George and this is not freedom or
> democracy, it is tyranny! This is a deplorable ruling that must be
> overturned. It is at odds with the facts and the law. If ‘under God’
> goes, then surely some misguided legal purist on the federal bench
> will, one day soon, determine that the Declaration of Independence
> (‘endowed by their Creator’) and the U.S. Constitution (‘Done…in the
> year of our Lord’) must go as well.” - Dr. D. James Kennedy
> http://www.coralridge.org/PledgeofAllegiance.htm
>
>> 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. :)