Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: djheater
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
One problem with the country right now is this battle that Mr. Dobson does identify properly - the battle between the secular society and the religious, faith based politics of the past. I, for one, think that this blurring between church and state is dangerous and embrace our secular roots - the separation between church and state was a founding principal of these United States and I personally feel that "faith based initiatives" are dangerous and counter-productive. So Mr. Dobson is right - there is friction between these two worlds. But, while he views it as our downfall, I believe much beauty can be found in this secular truth - that all men and women are equal, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, and religion.
So where in the Constitution does it say Church and State should be separate?
based on the implication of your statement, I'm guessing a letter from the author won't be enough to persuade you of his intent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can be interpreted 11ty billion ways. But to assume Jefferson intended to go as far as what the left is trying to do in this country because of his interpretive statement "thus building a wall of separation between church and state" is absurd.
I'm not so sure.
Jefferson had an almost pathological fear of the possible influence of organized religion upon the state and a general distrust of clergy.
Hey, I'm not the one holding the constitution as written, as law of the land. You have a problem with Jefferson, and his document you have recourse in the court. We can certainly amend it. right?
				
		
			