That separation of church and state bullcrap is based on the idea that the State cannot get involved in organized religion. Not the other way around.

Not to offend you or start a battle by questioning you, but please show me where the word or even a hint of that word in in the First Amendment below:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I guess I missed it, I do not see that word or anything like in this clause!

Dino, seriously, you need expert psychiatric help now! To want the death of those that oppose your beliefs and the destruction of America is serious mental derangement, it is self destructive and it will consume and destroy you if you do not get help ASAP.

I do not say this in anger or hate or dislike for you, but I am offering serious counsel to a terribly disturbed person!

Ran across this today and it was an interesting read…

http://biggovernment.com/pferrara/2010/02/09/the-right-of-recall/#more-72582

That led me to this…

http://www.recallcongressnow.org/

Which led me to this, something I wasn’t even aware we had on the books…

http://www.recallcongressnow.org/ndakota.php

* The North Dakota recall election of 1921 was the first successful recall of a state governor, North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier. Frazier was a member of the Nonpartisan League, a socialist leaning party that supported state ownership of industries. The Independent Voters Association (IVA), which was conservative and capitalist, took issue with government ownership of the Bank of North Dakota and State Mill and Elevator. The IVA launched a recall effort, gathered 73,000 names, and held a recall election on October 28, 1921 in which Ragnvald Nestos defeated Frazier by 4,102 votes. There would not be another successful gubernatorial recall until Gray Davis of California was ousted in 2003.

Ken: Actually, you and Robert108 were both right, the only mention by any of our Founding Father’s about Separation of Church and State was indeed from a single sentence in a single letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, solely to assure them he had no desire to create a national denomination. It was Justice Hugo Black in the late Forties that used that single sentence to construct a false doctrine of Separation of Church and State out of whole cloth, he was also a partner in FDR’s Court Packing Scheme, a former member of the KKK, a racist and not a very nice man.

Despite Hugo Blacks perversion of the First Amendment, effectively amending the Bill of Rights outside the Amendment process; IMO the beliefs of the Founding Father’s was along this line: The Government will not, as they did in Europe and other nations at the time, establish a national church and as most were Christian having differing forms of worship, they also did not want a national Christian Denomination. They in effect wanted to keep the State out of establishing a religion. However, on the other side of that coin, it was obvious by their many utterances, the federal government purchasing bibles for the public schools, even Jefferson in the Northwest Treaty encouraging any territories desiring statehood to teach the Christian Bible and its moral principles in their public schools, by the many states supporting the Christian faith in their laws and by utterances from the Supreme Court; it was never our Founding Father’s desire to keep religion out of the government only government out of religion, that is, they did believe in Christian influence upon our laws and in their selection of Christian legislators and Presidents.

What is wrong today is the great hostility of the government towards religious faith and the growing idea that people of faith should not desire, select or vote only for Christians and/or seek to influence our laws through the ballot box.

We are still mostly a Christian people, those people having a right to desire Christians in political office, support them and through them try and influence our laws to more closely conform to Judeo-Christian principles; and the government should pass no laws restricting religious worship and that includes a reasonable practice of that faith in the public square.

“…they saw the need for a separation between church and state.”

No, they didn’t. It is you who are the revisionist here. The “separation of church and state” is from KKK member Justice Hugo Black, who hated the Catholic Church.
The First Amendment doesn’t say that at all:

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Sorry, nothing about “separation of church and state” in there, bud.

^ that being said, as I’ve said before Neiman, I’ll defend to my death your right to worship as you please. As long as it’s not forced upon me, and I’ve never known you to impose your beliefs upon others. Discuss them passionately, yeah and I wouldn’t expect anything less if you really believe, but never have I seen you imposr them upon others.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – how can you read this and not see that it establishes a boundary between government and religion?

How is this confusing?

Sure about that? Deism was considered the belief in a singular god, no triune god. No belief in the supernatural stories of the new testament… all of which Jefferson subscribed to.

Jefferson was a devout Christian, who believed that Christ was the messenger of God, though not divine.

It’s foolish to assert that a man who attended CHRISTIAN Church every sunday, and who claimed to be a follower of Christ was a Deist.

But have fun with your delusions.

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

Separation of church and state is precisely what this means. There is no other possible conclusion.

Otherwise, you are forced to argue that Congress is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion, but it is okay to establish religion anyway. In other words, any other reading of this is self-contradictory.

Separation of church and state is not a ‘false doctrine’ – it is there in black and white, right there in the First Amendment.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment did not apply to the states, until it was incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment much later. So, states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts having Congregationalism as the state religion did not violate the First Amendment at that time.

I agree that this has been taken to a ridiculous extreme sometimes. Banning a creche on public property because it tends to ‘establish’ a religion is an expression of liberal paranoia, IMO.

Nonetheless, the First Amendment clearly establishes a boundary between state and religion, and rightly so.

“No belief in the supernatural stories of the new testament…”

So what do you think of the supernatural stories of the ‘old testament’?

Oh wait, you’ve already made it clear you’re paranoiacally afraid of Jews, a people for whom the saying ‘two Jews, three opinions’ was invented, and who cannot agree on the right amount of salt in matzoh ball soup (hint: high enough to nearly kill uninitiated gentiles at a minimum).

They were Christians. Give it the f up already.

That being said, the constitution doesn’t allow for religion to be introduced into government. Neiman is as usual reading it however suits his pathological need to feel like a righteous martyr, something his Jesus didn’t set out to do. He set out to be righteous, but the death thing was not the point, only a byproduct.

“Judeo-Christian principles”

Stop trying to speak on Jewish principles until you are at least willing to read and follow the Oral Law to your best ability or at least read it at all. The phrase Judeo-Christian makes me cringe.