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

Skip to comments.

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"
Liberty Counsel ^ | 2000 | Mathew D. Staver

Posted on 11/08/2004 11:59:43 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe

This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.

In modern times groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been "separation of church and state." These groups have intoned the mantra of "separation of church and state" so long that many people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. In Proverbs Chapter 18, verse 16, the Bible says, "He who states his case first seems right until another comes to challenge him." I'm sure you have seen legal arguments on television where the prosecution argues to the jury that the defendant is guilty. Once the prosecution finishes the opening presentation, you believe that the defendant is guilty. However, after the defense attorney completes the rebuttal presentation of the evidence, you may be confused, or at least you acknowledge that the case is not clear cut.

The same is true with the phrase "separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases, and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis." (2) The phrase, "separation of church and state," has become one of these misfortunes of law.

In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor out of context, strict separationists have often used the phrase to silence Christians and to limit any Christian influence from affecting the political system. To understand Jefferson's "wall of separation," we should return to the original context in which it was written. Jefferson himself once wrote:

On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part. (4)

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President on March 4, 1801. On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his election as President. Organized in 1790, the Danbury Baptist Association was an alliance of churches in Western Connecticut. The Baptists were a religious minority in the state of Connecticut where Congregationalism was the established church. (5)

The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association is understandable once we understand the background of church-state relations in Great Britain. The Association eschewed the kind of state sponsored enforcement of religion that had been the norm in Great Britain.

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, "Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals -- that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions." (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a "national Legislator" and they also understood that the "national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State." (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson's limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states.

Jefferson did not necessarily like receiving mail as President, but he generally endeavored to turn his responses into an opportunity to sow what he called "useful truths" and principles among the people so that the ideas might take political root. He therefore took this opportunity to explain why he as President, contrary to his predecessors, did not proclaim national days of fasting and prayer.

Jefferson's letter went through at least two drafts. Part of the first draft reads as follows:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate 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. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion... (8)

Jefferson asked Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General, and Gideon Granger, the Postmaster General, to comment on his draft. In a letter to Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson stated he wanted to take the occasion to explain why he did not "proclaim national fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did." (9) He knew that the response would "give great offense to the New England clergy" and he advised Lincoln that he should suggest necessary changes. (10)

Mr. Lincoln responded that the five New England states have always been in the habit of "observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from the respective Executives" and that this "custom is venerable being handed down from our ancestors." (11) Lincoln therefore struck through the last sentence of the above quoted letter about Jefferson refraining from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion. Jefferson penned a note in the margin that this paragraph was omitted because "it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings" by their state executives is respected. (12)

To understand Jefferson's use of the wall metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, we must compare his other writings. On March 4, 1805, in Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address, he stated as follows:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [i.e., federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. (13)

Then on January 23, 1808, Jefferson wrote in response to a letter received by Reverend Samuel Miller, who requested him to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [Tenth Amendment]. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. (14)

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have every belief, that the example of State executives led to the assumption of that authority by the General Government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.... [C]ivil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. (15)

Comparing these two responses to his actions in the state government of Virginia show the true intent of Jefferson's wall metaphor. As a member of the House of Burgesses, on May 24, 1774, Jefferson participated in drafting and enacting a resolution designating a "Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer." (16) This resolution occurred only a few days before he wrote "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In 1779, while Jefferson was governor of Virginia, he issued a proclamation decreeing a day "of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God." In the late 1770's, as chair of the Virginia committee of Revisers, Jefferson was the chief architect of a measure entitled, "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving." Interestingly, this bill authorized the governor, or Chief Magistrate with the advice of Counsel, to designate days of thanksgiving and fasting and, required that the public be notified by proclamation. The bill also provided that "[e]very minister of the gospel shall on each day so to be appointed, attend and perform divine service and preach a sermon, or discourse, suited to the occasion, in his church, on pain of forfeiting fifty pounds for every failure, not having a reasonable excuse." (17) Though the bill was never enacted, Jefferson was its chief architect and the sponsor was none other than James Madison.

So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.

In summary, the First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." In context, the word "state" really referred to the federal government. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. It was only applicable as a restraint against the federal government. The problem arose in 1940 (19) and then again in 1947 (20) when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states. This turned the First Amendment on its head, and completely inverted its meaning. (21) The First Amendment was never meant to be a restraint on state government. It was only applicable to the federal government. When the Supreme Court turned the First Amendment around 180 degrees and used Jefferson's comment in the process, it not only perverted the First Amendment, but misconstrued the intent of Jefferson's letter.

There is nothing wrong with the way Jefferson used the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor. The problem has arisen when the Supreme Court in 1947 erroneously picked up the metaphor and attempted to construct a constitutional principal. While the metaphor understood in its proper context is useful, we might do well to heed the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist:

The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. (22)

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.

Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation to be used by state officials and refusing to issue similar religious proclamations as president of the United States. His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments. (23)

The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.

INDEX

1.Ord. or 1789, July 13, 1787, Art. A III, reprinted in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of American States 52 (1927). 2. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 384 (1912) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

3. See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). See also McCollum v. Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).

4. Thomas Jefferson to Messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 25, November. 15, 1801 - March 31, 1802; Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 70. The letters referenced below can be found at this citation.

5. Daniel Dreisbach, "Sowing Useful Truths and Principles": The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the "Wall of Separation," 39 Journal of Church and State 455, 459 (1997).

6. Id. at 460.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 462.

9. Id. at 463 n. 16.

10. Id. at 465.

11. Id. at 466.

12. Id. at 462 n. 13.

13. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428; Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, n Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 3:378.

14. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428..

15. Id. at 11:430.

16. J. Body, ed., The Papers of Jefferson 1:105.

17. Report of the Committee of Revisors Appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia in MDCCLXXVI (Richmond, Va., 1984) 59-60; Julian P. Boyd, et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 2:556.

18. In the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States and that "no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people. . . [and are] withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals." The Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Madison's Report of 1799 2-3.

19. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

20. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 1.

21. One of the early Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, wrote that "the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions. . ." J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1879 (1833).

22. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

23. Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited, 56:4 William and Mary Quarterly 805, 812 (1999).


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; left
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe

bookmark for later


61 posted on 07/08/2006 5:08:46 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Great post. Liberals do like to build 'walls' for their self protection and promotion. Those walls of Jericho come to mind.
62 posted on 07/08/2006 5:24:01 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Wanna watch a liberal cry. Show them these letters. The only two letters with anything to do with a "separation". The first is a letter from a Danbury minister to Jefferson, then Jefferson's reply. Basically the minister is concerned the new government is powerful enough to start making laws effecting religion. Jefferson says there is a separation, and the government cannot legislate on religious issues.


The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of

Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,

Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere.



Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.



Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people.



And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson



To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
63 posted on 07/08/2006 5:38:50 AM PDT by Vision ("...cause those liberal freaks go to farrrrrr")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods
What is so conservative about government authority over the people's religion?

Nothing. And government control is what you are advocating. Atheists use the government to muzzle Christians in public.

64 posted on 07/08/2006 6:09:30 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Vision; FrankWoods
The only two letters with anything to do with a "separation". The first is a letter from a Danbury minister to Jefferson, then Jefferson's reply. Basically the minister is concerned the new government is powerful enough to start making laws effecting religion. Jefferson says there is a separation, and the government cannot legislate on religious issues.

Tell it to Frank and check his posts. He believes the opposite.

Let me also point out that this thread was 2 years old when Frank called it up to argue for atheism in public life.

65 posted on 07/08/2006 6:38:54 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

He can believe whatever he wants.


66 posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:45 AM PDT by Vision ("...cause those liberal freaks go to farrrrrr")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Vision
He can believe whatever he wants.

Yup. And won't win a debate on FR backing atheism. :)

67 posted on 07/08/2006 6:44:57 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: valence

"This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government."

"I bet you are all for the first line but let me ask you, what if it was Islamic integration into our government?"

We are there now, just replace " Islamic" with "Godless".


70 posted on 07/08/2006 7:14:06 AM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods
The First Prayer in Congress

offered by Jacob Duche
September 7, 1774

O - Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved bands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honroable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst The people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask In the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen

Reverend Jacob Duche reached the oratorical pinnacle of patriotic preachers with this sermon delivered to the Continental Congress on July 20, 1775. Duche, an Anglican minister in Philadelphia, delivered this fervent plea for heavenly support of the American Revolutionaries when he was chaplain of the Continental Congress. Reverend Duche, who was the brother-in-law of noted composer and patriot Francis Hopkinson, later denounced General Washington and the patriotic cause before fleeing as a loyalist to England in 1777.

US History, Carpenters' Hall

On Wednesday, September 7, 1774, at the delegates' second session, the Reverend Jacob Duché offered the first prayer in Congress. Known for his patriotic fervor, Duché was rector of Christ Church, the city's largest Anglican congregation located just two blocks away at Second & Market Sts. His text was Psalm 35, which begins, "Plead thou my case, O Lord, with them that strive with me, and fight thou against them that fight against me." Poignant in its own right, the psalm spoke directly to the Congress which only the day before received news, later proved incorrect, of British troops firing on Boston civilians. Dr. Duché followed the psalm with ten minutes of spontaneous prayer asking God to support the American cause. One delegate said he was "worth riding 100 miles to hear."

71 posted on 07/08/2006 7:14:15 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

ping for later reading


72 posted on 07/08/2006 7:14:56 AM PDT by FarmerW (Run Al Run!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods
Where is this going on, mi amigo querido?

Don't play dumb or coy, it's not cute. Atheists are using the ACLU to muzzle Christians and you (and everyone else) is aware of it.

73 posted on 07/08/2006 7:17:07 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods
What did I say to cause you to believe that I advocate government authority over religion?

By pushing the bogus separation of church and state.

74 posted on 07/08/2006 7:22:55 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CitadelArmyJag
"Amen! Now convince the left of this fact and we are all set!"

When you're done convincing them, start on all the atheists that infest Free Republic.

I wonder how many members here are also members of the ACLU?

75 posted on 07/08/2006 7:29:51 AM PDT by trickyricky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

Ping to 71 in response to 57.


76 posted on 07/08/2006 7:30:07 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

Comment #78 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods
Please give us what you believe is the most egregious example of this alleged practice that we might know exactly what you are talking about, mi amigo que hace declaraciones vagas.

Frank, I don't think this "tactic" is cute ok. Nor do I think your language skills are being used cleverly. Make a point and I'll respond.

79 posted on 07/08/2006 7:51:21 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods
Please give us what you believe is the most egregious example of this alleged practice that we might know exactly what you are talking about, mi amigo que hace declaraciones vagas.

Government censorship of a citizens speech while freely exercising religion is egregious.

Comprende?

80 posted on 07/08/2006 7:55:25 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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