Christian Forum:

Liberty News Forum

Make your opinions heard by posting your comments in the forum.

Post your comments on the Christian Forum.

News and Politics Links

Liberty News Forum - Home

Recent issues on the forum:

Separation of Church & State? -Lets find the TRUTH

Separation of Church & State? - Lets find the TRUTH!
by: Mike Crane

Across our land there is a growing debate and an increasing number of political and legal battles concerning the display of The Ten Commandments. While I am certainly in favour of displaying God's Laws, I have been puzzled by the arguments being put forth by the ACLU and others. They claim that such displays are unconstitutional based upon what they call 'Separation of Church and State.' They claim that Our Founding Fathers intended to build a 'wall of separation' between the Church and State and thus not only is the display of God's Laws Unconstitutional but is contrary to Our Founding Fathers' Principles.

Well these are certainly important arguments! If the ACLU and associates are protecting not only the Constitution but trying to implement the principles of our Founding Fathers, then they certainly deserve some support. On the other hand, if they are misrepresenting not only the Constitution but the principles of our Founding Fathers as well, then they are simply abusing the system to force their agenda upon the citizens.

So let's find some TRUTH in this argument and debate. In this issue let's look at the Principles of Our Founding Fathers and see if we can find some TRUTH.
-read the entire article here:
Separation of Church & State? - Lets find the TRUTH!

TomG The First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. This article is good. There probably are many examples of changes in definitions over time. I knew a guy that wrote definitions for dictionaries and I didn't trust him to write definitions without his liberal bias. He said he looked at old dictionaries to put together a definition. I thought at the time that he may write definitions of words that are political or about economics like a liberal would. Will dictionaries need a disclaimer and say what political agenda it's writers have?

The BoB Hello, It's been awhile, but I'm back.  The ACLU does take some matters too far, but I think they're right on this one.  Should atheists be subjected to Christian principles, because, even though Christians are in the majority, there are 27 million atheists in the US.  And there are also quite a bit of Buddhists and Muslims too.  Ask yourself this question, "How would I respond if the question was with the Nine Noble Truths of Buddhism?"  Would you advocate religious seperation?

Jasmine I believe the ACLU is misrepresenting our Constitution. As TomG points out, we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom *from* religion. I believe this means that all Americans are entitled to express their religious beliefs, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever. And of course, atheists and agnostics are also free to express their beliefs.

larrybilt Man, this is tuff for me...

In God I indeed Trust..

The constitutution, as you guys have pointed out guarantees freedom "of" religion and not freedom "from" religion.

I am usually not one to argue, so I'll just state my views and await your repsonse in the spirt that you always have done.

(this is a good forum)

It appears to me that "religion" implies "rules". The constitution implies rules so probably could be considered a from of religion.. hear me out.

The fact that 27 million atheists thrive in the USA , seems to indicate that the constitution may "allow" freedom (from) religion. Since an atheist probably has no rules , they tend to be "religion free". (sorry for so many quotation marks';I am not  a learned orator.)

I therefore respectfully submit, that Christianity is not so much of a 'religion'; rather an ideal. In essence, to live by faith in a supreme being without being chastised by following every rule to a "t".

It's almost like the constitution guarantees the right for a person to believe or non-believe at his own discression, as long as he or she conforms to the rules and regulations as stated by the constitution, and does not harm the citizens of this fair country..

I see nothing wrong with prayers in school, Or God Bless America, or In God we Trust..

I can also see how some non-christians could be distraught with this allowance..

Believe as you will, but do not do harm to your fellow patriots as we have witnessed in other nations..

Christianity, I believe, is therefore not a religion. The only rule it has is optional, and therefore not a rule. Either you believe in being Christ-like.. or you don't.. You get to choose your own path.

Sounds like freedom and America to me...

Thanks for listening...

Vinnie_B All that Seperation of Church and State means.....
Government shall not establish a religion!

Government has no right in trying to impose it's views
on the way its' citizens practice their religion......

Also Seperation of Church and State is not in our Constitution but that of the former Soviet Union.......

Mike_Crane
Your opinion is stated very clearly and I always respect the opinions of others. However if I am not mistaken what you are proposing is that any group of some size can just "bend" the Constitution, both in practice and intent, to suit the desires of that group. This is a very dangerous precedent to set.

The point of my article was to show that the ACLU (and others) are resorting to misrepresentations in their publically admitted zeal to remove displays of the Ten Commendments. When the word "Creator" was inserted into the Declaration of Independence it clealy meant Jehovah for example. The insertion of The Law's of Nature was a direct reference to the Scriptures, which meant the KJV of the Bible.

Regardless of your views on the current day display of the Ten Commandments, do you support what can only be called deliberate misrepresentation? Please note that on a radio debate I questioned Ms.Wineberg, head of the Tennessee ACLU on her statements about the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. She finally admitted on the air that the legal argument was really based on the 14th Amendment, being used to retroactively to apply the Bill of Rights to the States in a manner that would have never been approved by the Founding Fathers. As we all should all know, they were all deceased by 1867.

I would think that the 27 million atheists that you reference face more long term potential harm from setting another precedent of redefinition of the Constitution by judicial activism than a display on the wall of the Courthouse. I find it more than ironic that the most publicly visible opponents to the display of the Ten Commandments (the ACLU) use methods that obviously violate one of the Commandments!

Thanks,
Mike Crane

Make your opinions known on the Christian Forum