You ASSUME I do and did. You're wrong and have been proven so, in another thread.<br /><br />Never A$$-U-ME, you know the drill.QC, I like that makes me glad not to be Pat Robertson. The true minded and those open to understanding feel that way on many things. It is those who stand behind anyone on every matter whether they agree or not. Not thinking no democracy.
The words "Separation of Church" and State aren't there, but the "notion" is. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. That terminology wasn't coined by the media, or fabricated out of whole cloth by any Republican or Democrat; it came out of a debate by the serious thinkers who framed the constitution and others from early in our country's history. Names like Jefferson and Madison and George Washington. There is a large body of work supporting both sides, one side being "the government can't make laws regarding any religious establishment," the other side being "the government can't establish a religion, but laws about religion are okay." All of it is opinion. Both viewpoints are valid. If you want to belittle those who disagree with you on this point, go ahead, it's a free country.<br /><br />When a court (including the U.S. supreme court) is given the task of interpreting a law they often look to the writings of the drafters as evidence of its meaning. One may agree or disagree with that methodology but we inherited it from England. That is why Jefferson's and Madison's and Washington's letters are relevant.<br /><br />Can you tell what treedancer thinks from the way he asked his question? <br />"Do you think that the church should be trying to dictate to the people of there flock how they should vote?" Who on God's green earth would say yes to that? Fidel Castro or Sadam Hussein maybe.<br /><br />How about this: "Do you think a pastor has a right to express his political opinion to his congregation?" Yeeeeeah-no-maybe-I-don't-know.<br /><br />How about this: "Does a televangelist have the right to make political statements about an election during a religious broadcast?" No!Originally posted by DJ:<br /> The whole notion of "Seperation of Church and State" is NOT in the Constitution. Don't believe it, LOOK IT UP!<br />
The government is now actively creating law against particular religions via court decree.<br /><br />There is a large body of work supporting both sides, one side being "the government can't make laws regarding any religious establishment," the other side being "the government can't establish a religion, but laws about religion are okay." All of it is opinion. Both viewpoints are valid. If you want to belittle those who disagree with you on this point, go ahead, it's a free country.<br />
They are NOT relevant, IMHO. They DID NOT make to the final document. That is for a reason.<br /><br />That is why Jefferson's and Madison's and Washington's letters relevant.<br />
As it is today, only conservative leaning churches are held to that principle of not "leading" the congregation. Liberal churches have free reign. See the Hillary thread.Can you tell what treedancer thinks from the way he asked his question? <br />"Do you think that the church should be trying to dictate to the people of there flock how they should vote?" Who on God's green earth would say yes to that? Fidel Castro or Sadam Hussein maybe.<br />
Non-sequitur. Does not prove any of your previous points. Proof would be some sort of document describing the evil plan to infiltrate all levels of Gov't.<br /><br />Anyway, you are correct though. Clinton was a bible thumper when he thought it counted. Kerry was a man of faith tooOriginally posted by rolmops:<br /> If you think that this is hogwash,then please explain to me why at election time every politician is going to church accompanied by lots of cameras,or why Bush, at the beginning of his first term, came up with a plan to let religious groups participate in administering social service moneys.
Well that is clearly wrong. I'd like to find out about that - which decrees in particular?Originally posted by DJ:<br /> The government is now actively creating law against particular religions via court decree.<br />