To: wolfcreek
from that article at link:
Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, said the board's 10 Republicans had voted to "reject the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America today: the principle that government may not disfavor or promote any religion over all others."
The Texas Freedom Network bills itself as a watchdog of the religious right.
Does that mean what I think it means? They "rejected" it as in fought against the pooh-bah crap?
33 posted on
03/12/2010 8:08:28 PM PST by
exhaustedmomma
(All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should. Samuel Adams)
To: exhaustedmomma
“Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, said the board's 10 Republicans had voted to “reject the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America today: the principle that government may not disfavor or promote any religion over all others.”
According to judge Napalitano, this only applied to a national religion. Massachusetts, actually had a state religion at one time. So all this garbage about the USA being a “secular” country is just misinformation.
34 posted on
03/12/2010 8:24:20 PM PST by
greeneyes
(Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson