Replies

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of 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.
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

Uncle Jeff, True story here: Tonight I was at a very casual cafe bookstore hang-out, where, yes, there are sometimes a few old hippies too, and one young guy and his old hippie friends started to talking to me about this issue, and they were telling me why they agreed with the judge today.

And, I told them this: When someone says "God" in the pledge, if the person chooses to say that, well I think the exact definition of what that word means is a very private, and between the person and that's person's God, and if your definition is different in some way than mine, even if we both have the same religion, or a different religion, well, can you live with that idea? That difference? The word God may not mean the exact same to you as to me?

Because I think that is freedom of speech too. And no law should prohibit it.

What exactly you perceive in this highly personal matter of religion does not have to exactly mirror what I perceive.

And, do you know what, UncleJeff? He and all his friends eventually agreed with me. They could live with that. That freedom of speech.

Then they told me why they initially felt so much desire at first to side with the judge: they want to be known for something. And, they feel their time is running out. They are not yet famous for anything, so: they picked this.

I am not making this up. It was an interesting conversation.

Jefferson's Danbury letter. Of course. No disrespect meant but I am curious. Do you know what that was all about? I see liberals drag that out as if they are a cat with a mouse. It has no bearing on law and doesn't advocate religion being removed from government.

I sincerely do not know if it is used by those who don't know or those who want to deceive.

Jefferson signed into law a bill giving land to missionaries. He rode in his carriage up to the Hill for full Sunday services in the House of Representatives. He wanted religion to flourish. He never wanted religion out of the public square. That is what the first amendment was all about. It was an antitrust act of sorts. No Federal religion could be established. That way hundreds of different faiths could flourish.

I simply do not understand your side. There is no basis for what you contend. Zero. None. Nada.

And for over 150 years there was no separation of church and state. Religious oaths for public office weren't knocked down by SCOTUS until the 1960s.

All I can figure is some have such a deep hostility to Christianity, that they are willing to prostitute their intellect to pretend history is not history and the constitution does not say what it clearly says.

Those people should be aware that this has little to do with religion. It has everything to do with liberty.

I don't care if Muslims want to pray in school (well I do care but not in a legal sense). They have that right. So do Sikhs, Jews and anyone else.

Be aware, your twisting of the constitution, you reliance on fiat judicial ruling can come back to bite. It always does. Trust the people to do what is right. Trust in liberty. Do not trust unelected judges. Do not applaud a judicial ruling censoring the speech of others because you don't like what they say. You could be next.