I stated this in 2 of the post in the religious forum but on a political view here it is.
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” George Washington:\

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

The separation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the state, but now twisted people use it against the church and forgot the meaning of it. Many reasons why they made that for the government not to control the church, but not it seems to dictate it in some ways which goes against it. The rules have changed so much that the government believes the lies. Religion has a right like everyone else does to state their voice. George Bush is right to talk about his religion and use it to help him make decision which should be encouraged and if people don’t like it they can jump off a cliff.

It seems that the people that attack it the most are the Atheist and Jewish own organizations. If they don’t like it they can move to the former penal colony of Australia.

Some links that comment about it are.
www.jerseygop.com/gary-schneider-4.htm
www.christianity.ca/news/...2.007.html

Replacing one religion for another is silly since we know that atheism is not working well which helped with the moral decline. The government is always more corrupt than the church and if the church is very corrupt then you better watch out for the government. All Religion should be encouraged to have a say in the government especially Christianity since this is founded by Christian valued and has been for most of its life, and not by Muslim, Buddhist, atheists, and others. Yes atheism is categorized as a religion by the courts which seems to be taking rise out of stupid people that think they are smart. The government can not and should not impose their rules on the Christian religion. But whoever steps over government laws should be punished like how in the news recently how Satanism is outlawed in a European country since it encourages killing.

So many find what Kerry said that he will not appoint a devoted Christian to the supreme court which the majority of liberals loved that.
A harsh punishment should be given to those traitors. Kind of like Ann Coulter said about the Muslims to kill the leaders and convert the followers, and the same should be done to the extreme vicious godless liberals.

"The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values."
"The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church."
"The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
"Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation....The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible."
"www.noapathy.org/tracts/m...ation.html
Read links if you like to get more info.
- ============================== some other things about it
"sound bites:
1) There is no "wall of separation" in the C.U.S. That term was mentioned in a letter penned by Jefferson.

2) Anti-religionists (usually leftards) always talk about the clause proscribing the establishment of religion but never mention the flip-side of the coin that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

3) For legislation to comport with the first amendment, it must be religion-neutral; that is, it must neither promote A PARTICULAR religion nor repress a particular religion or all religions generally.

4) From their writings, it is clear that the Framers wished to proscribe the establishment of one particular religion as the official state religion. It was not their intent to purge the government of any and all references to God. The ACLU, atheists, and many leftards do not merely wish to separate religion from state; they wish to separate God from society."

-------
"It is also clear as glass that the Framers were leaving the door WIDE OPEN for the several states to adopt their own laws regarding religion; that is, they were not proscribing the establishment of particular religions by the legislatures of the several states. How do we know this? Because the first is the only amendment that specifically mentions Congress, as in "Congress shall make no law...."

The Framers new full well that the colonies were established primarily for the free exercise of particular religions, and they fully expected the individual states to act no differently. Article VI merely proscribes religious tests for holding public office, nothing more."

[This message has been edited by CheeseStorm (edited May 21, 2005).]

quote:

---

If religion kept its nose out of stem cell research and cloning and other stuff I wouldn't mind it half as much.

---

I don't disagree with stem cell research in general - take from bone marrow and umbilical cords all you want, I won't mind. It's just abortion I'm against.

Warsong: I agree with your post.

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

quote:

---

Cause it's not cool to have a kid in a family who doesn't want him, especially if he gets messed up, or if he's gonna have a crippling painful disease or something harsh like that.

---

Coolness isn't the question - morality is. It's immoral for a full grown adult to be killed, why the exception for the unborn child? It's not logical IMHO.

For a parent not wanting the child, there's usually a larger issue at stake - the issue should've been resolved before the parents had sex, not after.

For having a disease or something, that's a bit gray IMHO, but still - I've seen people with such problems live happy lives despite their problems. Shouldn't we should focus on helping them instead of killing them?

------------------
6 "This is what the LORD says --
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." -- Isaiah 44:6-8, NIV

quote:

---

Shouldn't we should focus on helping them instead of killing them?

---

Yeah totally, if it's one thing that really boils my blood, it is the fact that abortion is not illegal. Actually a friend and myself talk every once in a while about starting some sort of out-reach, to deal with young women (or girls) that don't want to have their baby. We're thinking that if we could talk them into having the baby anyway, then we'll take care of the child in an orphanage or home or something until she figures out what it is exactly that she wants to do (give the child up for adoption or keep it). Because abortion shouldn't even be an option.

EDIT:
And nice post warsong. It's amazing how that got turned around and is now used for removing the name of God from everything. As far as the government is concerned it's better to have grown men running down the streets in parades wearing bikini's instead of having the nativity scene shown publicly for the Christmas season. It's just ridiculous.

------------------
If I were a drummer I would use a cymbal.
If I were a writer I would use a pencil.
I would use my voice if I were a singer.
No matter who or what we are we must praise.

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited May 22, 2005).]

Separation was meant to go both ways. Not only protecting the church from the state, but also keeping history from repeating. You see, our founding fathers came from a Europe where the church run government was using God's word to justify oppression. They wanted to remove that possibility, as well as keep religion pure.
About Jefferson's letter. He was writing to the Baptist church to assure them that the government was not indeed considering making an opposing denomination (with which they disagreed on a few matters) the official state or national religion.

Here is the constitutional "basis" for separation:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
It isn't even a sentence, and could be translated as such:
"Government can't make laws to support one specific religion, or that would restrict it."
Wow, that says almost nothing. In closing, saying that the mention of the word "God" or of religious icons/symbols, et cetera, should be removed from the running of this country is based entirely on delusions of bull crap. There is no solid support of it, except for the words of one president that aren't law, and were twisted to look like they said something. I rest my case in agreement of the first poster.

------------------
Eyesore? I like to think of it as fertilizer. After all, it isn't really littering if it's biodegradable.

Sides, many abortions arn't done because they dont want the child, its becasue... well... (i hate this subject) she and another guy did "it" when they WEREN't Married, and when their parents DIDN'T Know (even if their parents DID know, it still isn't right) so she has an abortion to cover up.

All in All: Its seriously messed up: its nothing but a way to let kids *try* and escape conciquences or for adults to try and shirk responsiblities or some other crap.

BEEELAAH...

my 2 cents...

Brandon: Good luck wiht your work! I hope it turns out good!

------------------
God rules.

...no duh

[This message has been edited by Realm Master (edited May 26, 2005).]