Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin

Regarding “4” - the wall of separation between “Church and State” was there to protect the Church, NOT the State.


15 posted on 03/02/2012 6:05:44 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Little Ray

Regarding “4” - the wall of separation between “Church and State” was there to protect the Church, NOT the State.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From the states side there is a impenetrable six feet thick stone wall. from the church side there is no wall. The church can reach through and slap the state silly.


30 posted on 03/02/2012 7:23:04 AM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Little Ray
Regarding “4” - the wall of separation between “Church and State” was there to protect the Church, NOT the State.

More to the point, it was there to protect the rights of the individual states to maintain their own official churches without having the federal government supersede that.

39 posted on 03/02/2012 12:11:36 PM PST by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson