Replies

"The Liberal Secular Extremists cite the mythical "wall of separation" clause... which appears nowhere in our Constitution."

No, there is no "wall of separation" clause, but there is an "establishment clause" in the First Amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the late 1940s as meaning there is be a separation of church and state. Because they interpret the laws, the Supreme Court has as much authority as the Constitution. I understand this and have tremendous respect for the law of the land.

"If indeed our Rights as enumerated in our Constitution are inalienable—that is, cannot be taken from us—because, as our founders wrote, they are granted to us by God the Creator Himself, what praytell becomes of those "Rights" once God is forbidden His rightful place... or even any place... in our society or Government?"

I assume this refers to the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. If one is to accept that as law, then it would be just as easy to say state support of Christianity affects the pursuit of happiness of non-Christians. Which brings me to...

"Whether our discourse in this matter offends some Muslims or Krishnas is not at issue. It is, in fact, a non-issue, and has no place in our deliberations. It is a diversion concocted by those who hate God."

Why is this a non-issue? The inalienable rights mentioned here are granted to all Americans, no?

I don't need my religion to be in public places or supported by my government. As long as I can pray when I want to and go to church when I want to, I will never see my government as an opponent. This is because I realize that the establishment clause says no religion may be supported by the state, and that extends to all religions, not just Christianity.

"I assume this refers to the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution."

See what happens when we "ass u me"? I also refer to the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution). When in the Declaration it states that all men are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, it goes on to state that "among them are"...

...it does not state that those rights listed in the Declaration are the only rights we are given by God. Nor does it imply this. Nor should you infer this.

;-/

I don't need my religion to be in public places or supported by my government. As long as I can pray when I want to and go to church when I want to, I will never see my government as an opponent. This is because I realize that the establishment clause says no religion may be supported by the state, and that extends to all religions, not just Christianity.

I do. I don't want The TRUTH on the margin or relegated to private homes. The first amendment says nothing about public/private. Furthermore, our founders were NOT private about theirs:

Jefferson attended church in the Chambers of Congress and worship was conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps band (how blatant can he be about violating separation of church and state!);

Charles Thompson (signer of D of I) translated first bible for America (Thompson bible)'

John Witherspoon (signer) - TWO translations of bible

J. Langdon and Charles C. Pinckney - founded the American bible society - going strong today!

Benjamin Rush - manager of American Bible society (was it a private society? Not if they wanted to pass out their bibles!); Charles Hopkinson (signer) - published book of psalms set to music so we can sing them like David did - nothing private about that.

There are many other facts like these that I could cite. So, your contention is wrong and it is actually dangerous. You may want to settle for marginalization of Christianity, I AM NOT SIR. I shall not put Jesus Christ in a closet for anyone!

I don't need my religion to be in public places or supported by my government. As long as I can pray when I want to and go to church when I want to, I will never see my government as an opponent. This is because I realize that the establishment clause says no religion may be supported by the state, and that extends to all religions, not just Christianity.

Bingo ! We have a winner !!!

"I don't need my religion to be in public places or supported by my government."

Certainly not. But the American Government needs to comport itself in a manner that truly deserves the support of Christians, or it needs to be reminded of its appropriate role by them.

The alternative is to have the Socialists and NAMBLA and the ACLU (did I just repeat myself?) telling our Government how they'd like it to behave, and I'd like to hear Washington's or Jefferson's opinion of that proposal.

;-/

No, there is no "wall of separation" clause, but there is an "establishment clause" in the First Amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the late 1940s as meaning there is be a separation of church and state.

Actually the interpretation dates back to 1878, and Reynolds v. US:

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the 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." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

-Eric

Because they interpret the laws, the Supreme Court has as much authority as the Constitution. I understand this and have tremendous respect for the law of the land.

Surely you don't believe that? God help us if that is a common attitude.