[MaDeuce]

I'm not a very religious person, but, correct me if I'm wrong ... if there was a strict separation between religion and gov't and there was never any mention of a God in our founding documents and Constitution, wouldn't the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" be null and void since these were "endowed by our creator".

Also, wouldn't the Bill Of Rights be null and void if there was to be no acknowledgment of a God or if there was a strict separation between religion and gov't? Since the Bill Of Rights are enumerated rights (i.e. natural rights), e.g. granted by God and not man.

I've always believed that if the libs could get a ultra strict interpretation that religion and gov't should be completely separated, then they can say that the Bill Of Rights are man made and can be taken away by man ... bring in exhibit A, the Second Amendment. Once the Bill Of Rights can be repealed then the only rights allows will be those granted by the gov't.

See, this has been the Holy Grail, the End Game of the libs (aka Marxists), the destruction of religion and the repeal of the notion that rights are granted by God and are subject to review and repeal by the gov't.

Sneaky F--king bastards.

[freedom_forge]

I agree. I'm in the agnostic category but my research indicates clearly that our founding was influenced by Jewish and Christian concepts. I don't believe we are a "Christian" nation in the way Jerry Falwell means it though.

But what really gets me is that in an era of Muslim suicide bombings and the decapitation of journalists, this bunch is so fearful of Christians. It's almost comical. Look out everybody! Here come the Baptists with bombs strapped to their chests.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.

Some of these liberal-tarians forget, it is THEY who advocate “separation of church and state.” Let's cram it right back down their throats...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Now, it ain't so palatable to them, is it? They are the ones bashing the religious folks, now they want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in their hell...

If I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, I don't think someone should be able to light one with a U.S. flag and call it “free speech.”

Of course, a lot of these traitors to the United States would also whine if we wanted an Amendment to ban homosexual marriage or flag burning, wouldn't they?