We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church. I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to, the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.
Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?
I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God. A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.
Yes, it does.
-- And saying that "Natures God entitles us" to do anything is a personal opinion of the men that wrote the Declaration.
-- I have no problem with that opinion as written.
-- I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorize our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.
We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church.
Your "definition" is based on unfounded speculation, joe. Respecting ANY of the establishments of religion is not allowed to any level of government.
I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to,
I am not "ambivalent" to freedom of religion, joe. That's a flat out fabrication.
the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.
-- Why do you think I want public worship forbidden?
Another idiotic, unfounded claim, joe. -- I've supported our Constitution on FR for six years. I swore an oath to support & defend it almost 50 years ago, one I've honored.
Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government.
No, joe, -- this thread is about your fanatical insistence that there is no need for a separation of church & state. The establishment clause says otherwise.
People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.
Sheer bull, joe. I, nor anyone here have ~ever~ said ANYthing about keeping anyone out of office that is prepared to swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Can you swear such an oath Joe? Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?
I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God.
I see; - you have reservations.. -- Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Thanks joe... Just as I thought.
A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.
A man who cannot swear an unreserved oath to support the principles of our Constitution is ~worse~ than untrustworthy joe..