and takes a look at Cankles in one of her Mao Tse-tung tent smocks he cries himself to sleep.
Posted on 02/19/2017 1:25:53 PM PST by drewh
On the 30th day of Donald Trump’s presidency, the president and his team seemingly launched his 2020 reelection campaign. Trump, 70, took to the stage to whip up support, denounce the media and present his version of how is administration is running so far. But the rare appearance by Melania Trump, 46, at the event proved just as controversial, and not just for her brief call for unity and subsequent swipe at critics, hers and his.
Twitter immediately lit up with praise and shock at the First Lady leading the crowd in prayer. Trump supporters relished the “Libs flipping out” and heaped praise on her demonstration of faith. Critics heatedly argued that Melania Trump had breached the separation between church and state, some sniping that she had to read the prayer from a sheet, evidently not knowing the text by heart.
However, concern that her prayer somehow shows a new joining together of church and state in the Trump administration is unfounded. Not only is there no official legal separation of church and state in the United States, but presidents have often and openly offered Christian prayers while in office, and never mind their wives, who are not officially elected members of government.
Other presidents showed Christian values in other ways. Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist, taught Sunday school while in the White House. Bill Clinton, also a Baptist, could recite lengthy Bible passages from memory and skillfully employed religious language in his speeches. Harry Truman, a devout Baptist, spoke openly about how much his Christian values informed how he governed, but as a pious man was famously quoted saying, “I'm not very much impressed with men who publicly parade their religious beliefs.... I've always believed that religion is something to live by and not to talk about.”
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
Interesting that they are so concerned about the brief prayer spoken by a white woman who happens to be a private citizen, and have ignored the much longer invocation delivered by a black preacher earlier in the event. Must be anti-white racism.
[[Donald Trump in his official capacity may NOT WORK FOR CONGRESS in favoring one religion over another.]]
That’s not even in the constitution either- there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a president from working with congress to favor one religion over another- what IS i n the constitution however is a banning of the government from forcing people to accept one religion over another under penalty of the law- ie the ‘make no law’ part of the constitution
The reason we left england was because they were forcing people to belong to an ‘official national religion’ under penalty of law if they were not-
Ginsburg took it upon herself to INVENT NEW LAW by declaring that government could not be seen to ‘favor one religion over another’- She was infact in violation of her oath of office by doing so- she was never given power to legislate from the bench, yet that is exactly what she did by inventing new law
[[No, the separation of church and state has to do with the state controlling the religion. This happened in England and was the last straw for the Pilgrims and Puritans.]]
exactly-
[[Melania has every right to cite the prayer.]]
Exactly what she does NOT have a right to do is mandate that everyone convert to Christianity and bow their heads under penalty of the law whenever she prays in public
> “That’s not even in the constitution either- there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a president from working with congress to favor one religion over another- what IS i n the constitution however is a banning of the government from forcing people to accept one religion over another under penalty of the law- ie the ‘make no law’ part of the constitution”
That is what was meant by the President not working with Congress as Congress’s chief function is to make law and for the President to sign them. i.e. they must work together to pass law.
SHOW ME a law that Congress made that either respects an establishment of religion, or prohibits the free exercise thereof, and I’ll show you a constitutional violation, as opposed to a politically correct, anti-Christian violation, of Church-state separation.
Also, and with all due respect to mom & pop, the consequence of parents failing to make sure that their children are taught the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, 10th Amendment-protected state power to legislatively address religious issues in this example, is the following. Low-information citizens now swallow the line by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices that “atheist” Thomas Jefferson’s Church-state separation words apply to both federal and state governments.
But in stark contrast to the interpretation of Jefferson’s words by anti-religious expression activist justices, the real Thomas Jefferson had indicated that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states had reserved government power to legislatively address religious issues uniquely to themselves for example, regardless that they had made the 1st Amendment in part to prohibit such powers entirely to the feds.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; [emphasis added] …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The main difference with the scope of state power to legislatively address religious issues between Jefferson’s time and now is this. When the states ratified the 14th Amendment, they obligated themselves to make sure that all laws that the states make respect all rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect politically correct LGBT “rights,” the pro-LGBT activist states that have punished Christian business owners for choosing not to provide certain services to LGBT people have unthinkingly violated Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by doing so imo.
First of all, there is no such “separation of church and state”.
Second of all, Mrs Trump did not attempt to establish a state religion.
-AND-
Third of all, Mrs Trump IS NOT Congress.
These same complainers would allow the Muzzie call to prayer to be blasted out on loudspeakers 5 times a day.
Tom Jefferson was answering a question of a pastor of Danbury baptist Church in Danbury CT had about whether Tom would be allowing a National Denomination of Christianity (a national religion) for the country to which Tom said no, people were to have their own choice of denomination and religious expression. https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/
Just ask these stupid libs where “separation of church and state” exists in the constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s right under the clause that says it’s alright to kill babies.
Compare that photo with one of the ape FLOTUS that just vacated the White Hut.
(Don’t post it here though.)
FLOTUS is not on the government payroll or with any law established government duties.
The Left is determined to be unhinged and Trump is promoting it.
Melania is not Congress and she did not make a law respecting Religion.
Melania has an official capacity in the White House with deputies, staff, budget, official schedules. As the President’s spouse, she is a symbol of his life, of America, and an ornament to the administration.
Donald Trump signs legislation into law, so he is part of the lawmaking process.
But all the above does not matter nor does it matter what the First Lady did.
1. No law is proposed by the President or Congress that would favor the establishment of one religious belief over any other.
2. There is no separation of Church and State in the US Constitution as the Title of this thread implies.
3. The rally held in Florida was not official White House business, rather a weekend stop at the President’s Florida home where he met with his supporters.
4. Even if the President had said a Christian prayer or quoted biblical scripture himself in lieu of the First Lady, it would not be unconstitutional.
5. If the President wants to say a Christian or Jewish prayer in the white House at meetings or press conferences or any official ceremony, he is not restricted from freely exercising his right to his religious beliefs.
This thread and its title is a trivial, frivolous, unimportant reference to the First Lady reciting in prayer the Lord’s Prayer. It is much ado about nothing. The person writing the report should be ashamed they drew negative attention to it.
That said, if the First Lady had recited the Quran, people would have a right to be livid because such a preference for Islam was never disclosed in the campaign and election, and people have the right to free association and to vote against a person’s religious views. In this case, Americans knew they were voting for a Christian President and First Lady. So there was and is no deception.
Alexander Griffing of Haaretz appears to be an unimportant nobody who is more of a political hack than a news journalist.
The news of the First Lady’s introduction is quite brief “Melania Trump, the First Lady of the United States, arrived with her husband the President in Melbourne, Florida where she introduced the President to an enormous crowd of supporters by leading the crowd in prayer reciting the Lord’s Prayer. This news reporter was not able to find a time in US history where a first lady led a crowd of supporters in prayer. The crowd seemed to agree enthusiastically with the First Lady’s invocation with many interviewed afterward stating they found it refreshing to hear the First Lady’s choice of introduction as the Lord’s Prayer followed by her solemn promise and pledge to always do what is right by the American people.”
Unfortunately, the above is too soporific for today’s skunks in the field of journalism. Such skunks are trained to make something/anything stink to gain attention in the hopes of grabbing the spotlight with a prevoking headline.
You used an awful lot of space to say what I said in a couple of lines and I bet you think you are refuting me.
The First Lady should have told the crowd that she was no ways tired using her best Negro dialect.
I may be wrong but I don't think Jonathan Edwards was born until the 1700's.
You are correct. We memorized a sermon of his and the 1620 reference must be about when the colony was founded as Jamestown was earlier. Jamestown was more traditional Elizabethan.
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.
