$1,000 REWARD Offered to find "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in US Constitution

$1,000 REWARD OFFERED BY CHRISTINE O'DONNELL'S 2008 CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR ANYONE WHO CAN FIND THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE" In the US Constitution

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA (October 21, 2010) -- $1,000 is being offered -- including as a donation to CHRIS COONS' U.S. Senate Campaign in Delaware -- for any one who can find the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in the United States Constitution, by Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley. Moseley was the 2008 primary campaign manager for national Cinderella candidate CHRISTINE O'DONNELL.

In a US Senate debate on October 19, 2010, in Wilmington, Delaware, non-lawyer Christine O'Donnell bravely entered Widener Law School to debate lawyer Chris Coons on the Constitution before a crowd of law students and law professors.

O'Donnell called Coons on the carpet, correctly exposing Coons' mis-statements about the First Amendment. Coons claimed that the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not. O'Donnell took Coons to school inside the law school.

When challenged by O'Donnell, Coons then changed his "story" several times, offering several different versions of the First Amendment.

In the end, Coons offered yet another mangled mis-statement of the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell challenged laughingly "That's in the First Amendment?" NONE of Coons' changing versions were an accurate statement of the First Amendment. The final statement Coons offered is not in the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell asked "That's in the First Amendment?"

Despite the Left's attempt to amend the US Constitution by simply repeating "The Big Lie" over and over again, the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found in the United States Constitution. In fact, the words "church" and "separation" also are not found individually anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Coons and the leftist media quickly back-tracked and tried to cover for Coon's gaffe, by changing the subject. The exchange was mis-reported by portraying the First Amendment as, in substance, including the functional equivalent of "separation of church and state."

However, this also is false. The First Amendment guarantees "THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (of religion)." A wall of separation would violate the 2nd part of the clause, violating THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

Any rule that makes religion or religious people unwelcome in any place or any aspect of American life is a violation of the "FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Similarly, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for any person to serve in government or have any position of public trust under the U.S. Constitution.

However, this swings both ways. The Constitution does not permit a test of NON-religion as a condition of serving in government or acting in government. A test that one cannot be religious to act or serve in government violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2008, O'Donnell was the offiical Republican nominee for the US Senate running against Joe Biden. Jonathon Moseley, a long-time friend, ran O'Donnell's party convention primary campaign.

In 2010, O'Donnell defeated long-time Congressman Mike Castle for the Republican nomination running again for Joe Biden's old Senate seat.

You are very confused.

There are two (2) sides to the First Amendment’s clause on religion.

On the one hand, the government may not establish a particular religion as the official religion of the United States.

There must be NO place in American life where religion is not welcome, otherwise the free exercise of religion is violated.

The fact that there is NO place in American life closed to religion DOES NOT mean that the government is then establish a religion.

For example, if many religions are found in government, government is not establishing an official religion.

Where you are wrong is that government acknowledgement of God and of religion is not establishing a religion.

Government support of religion generally, without saying which one is better or “correct” is allowed under free exercise.

The US Supreme Court has wandered all over the map. US Supreme Court judges criticize the US Supreme Court’s modern decisions in dissents.

You are also confused by “allowing” a prayer versus the government or public school LEADING students in a prayer.

The government *MUST* allow citizens to engage in religious activity, including in government fora, government buildings, etc.

The citizens doing something is not the same as the government doing it.

The government may allow only Christian prayer, but MUST allow private citizens to pray any way the citizens want.

That has nothing to do the government LEADNG prayer.

“The government may allow only Christian prayer, but MUST allow private citizens to pray any way the citizens want.”

Please re-read your statements. How does this tie into the First Amendment??? The ultimate litmus test to this statement is to allow Muslim prayer alongside Christian prayer. Is this allowed in America? Where does it say in the Constitution that we must follow the rules for Christians only?

Your statement is completely DANGEROUS to the freedom of religion overall. Sorry, but the government must allow ALL prayer and allow private citizens ALL prayer, or prevent ALL prayer in government and allow private citizens ALL prayer.

People, please get a grip here. It’s either all or nothing. The law is clear. If you want prayer in government, it must allow equal and non-preferential treatment of all religions. If you want preferential treatment for for a particular religion, by all means move to Rome, London, or Rijahd. They have a wonderful bias. I guess you believe that bias was so “welcome” to the framing fathers they embraced this system from the start. If you believe this, I have some swampland in North Korea for sale.

“I hope we do agree on this: The intent in the founding documents, and the message in Jefferson’s letter was to assure that the United States would never had an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT mandated religion, such as was the case in England with the Church of England.”

No, the intent of the founding fathers was to not have a government who has any type of endorsement, preferential treatment, or establishment of ANY religion, regardless as to whether it’s Christian or not.

They understood that Deists were very powerful at the time. They didn’t want their control over the nation either. They understood that religious endoctrination of any kind was self-defeating.

Again, I will go back to the original documents. Christianity was NOT found in the original Constitution and for good reason. No, Christianity wasn’t the only founding principles of the United States. The framing fathers were extremely intelligent. They knew there were inherent flaws in existing Christian legal system. It was far from perfect as Britain was clear evidence of the massive amounts of corrupt and mis-appropriated power that was prevalent there.

“No, the intent of the founding fathers was to not have a government who has any type of endorsement, preferential treatment, or establishment of ANY religion, regardless as to whether it’s Christian or not.”

You are incorrect...the first draft contained the words:

“Shall pass no law respecting any denomination....”

I don’t have it with me here at work, but the dictionary of that time frame, defined “Diests” the opposite of what is accepted today. Evey wonder why Franklin (labeled a Diests) would call for PRAYER during the deliberations for the Declaration of Indepence if he believed God has NO direct intervnetion in the affairs of man?

Ever wonder why Jefferson built a chapel in the University of Virginia?

Ever wondered why John Adams said that the revolution forever created a bond between civil government and Christianity? In fact, Adams said that if it did NOT, then the revolution was in vain.

Ever wonder why Jefferson demanded Chaplians...not Rabbis, not Inmans, for the military and for Congress?

Every state at the founding of our nation had their own state prefered Christian denominations...did the federal goverment step in and abolish them? No...but Jefferson did inform that one would not be given preferential treatment versus another.

BocoLoco write: Yes, yes, and yes. God has no place in the government because it can be easily corrupted by members of the church.

With all due respect, the topic is not your opinion, BocoLoco, but what the US Constitution says. The US Constitution clearly says that God has EVERY place in the government and in every other part of American life. If there is any place in American society that is a "God free zone" than THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION is VIOLATED.

It does not matter what benefits you think you can point to, the US Constitution cannot be ignored. The First Amendment sets up a delicate balance between competing interests. Our courts have ignored that tension between two poles and have shreded the US Constitution. Any kind of separation VIOLATES the writtten Constitution, because it violates free exercise of religion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.