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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 11/08/2004 11:59:44 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Bump for later.


2 posted on 11/08/2004 12:01:05 PM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Amen! Now convince the left of this fact and we are all set!


3 posted on 11/08/2004 12:01:58 PM PST by CitadelArmyJag ("Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions" G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitadelArmyJag
The Founding Fathers and Deism - refuting the standard accusations that most of the Founding Fathers were deists such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison.
4 posted on 11/08/2004 12:04:57 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Thanks. I've had a number of debates of this issue with the opposition quoting the ACLU's wrong-headed position that's so prevalent today.


5 posted on 11/08/2004 12:09:39 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

interesting article.

I knew that the "doctrine of separation of church and state" was a canard, but I did not know the history of it.

Thank you.

You may wish to read my thoughts on militant secularism at redbay.blospot.com


6 posted on 11/08/2004 12:10:39 PM PST by KFAT (polijunkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Thanks AGAIN TG- you are FULL of useful info today- much appreciated by this freeper:)


7 posted on 11/08/2004 12:17:55 PM PST by SE Mom (To Chirac: No blood for chocolate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KFAT

My apologies to Alan Keyes. He has been making this claim for quite some time. Although I like Mr. Keyes very much, I thought he was a bit out on the limb on this one. I was wrong. It looks like Alan Keyes was exactly right.


8 posted on 11/08/2004 12:27:15 PM PST by gjbevil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The First Amendment simply means that the government will not establish an official state religion as for example the Church of England in Britain, which many American immigrants previously suffered under. It has nothing to do with divorcing religion and religious sentiments from government.


9 posted on 11/08/2004 12:29:50 PM PST by Norman Bates (Game over. Bush wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gjbevil

Everson v. Board of Education...one of FDR nominees to the Supreme Court in an effort to pack the court...Justice Hugo Black...created this "separation of church and state" and essentially outlawed prayer in schools. Alan Keyes has always made the point that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (national religion) and Congress is a branch of the Federal Government.


10 posted on 11/08/2004 12:33:31 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Bump for Church


11 posted on 11/08/2004 12:40:54 PM PST by BluSky (Liberalism - destroying lives, one failure at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

"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?


12 posted on 11/08/2004 12:41:28 PM PST by valence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: valence
The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government. - Justice Joseph Story - Familiar Exposition of The Constitution Of The United States - 1833
13 posted on 11/08/2004 12:49:15 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe (Born and raised in Jesusland!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: valence

Absolutely not, but you shouldn't pretend as if everything is relative.


14 posted on 11/08/2004 12:51:04 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan (BURN IN HELL, MICHAEL MOORE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I've known this for some time. However the ACLU and their ilk have told their lie so often that most believe it true. Hopefully, W will be able to appoint a few pure jurists to the SCOTUS and set us back on course.


15 posted on 11/08/2004 12:56:13 PM PST by retiredcpo (2 johns - flushed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Allow me to clarify something:

Instead of citing the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided instead to use a letter written by a man who was neither at the drafting nor ratification of the document. Not only that, the letter had been written a full decade after the fact.

It is also worth noting that in doing so, they created law from whole cloth, something the SCOTUS does not have the authority to do. As the Constitution they chose to ignore spelled out, creating law is something exclusive to the Legislative Branch of government, otherwise known as Congress.

This makes the ruling that created this church/state seperation wholly unconstitutional.

16 posted on 11/08/2004 1:29:13 PM PST by Houmatt (I am deeply saddened Daschle lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: retiredcpo

As a teacher, I don't mind religion in the schools, but this often means today that I support religion in the schools, as long as it is one that I don't oppose. My brother was prohibited by some so-called Christians (not the school system at all) from giving a graduation prayer because he was of a religion that some did not agree with, even though many people of different religions had done it before.

Contrary to what some belief, much religion has been taken out of the schools by lawsuits filed by those who opposed the school doing something that was done by a religion that they opposed or of "fear" of being offended by someone doing something from that religion. For example, in my state, a high school could not sing deity-linked Christmas songs because a Jewish student and her parents sued to have the school choir not do it. A Mormon in Texas sued to have school prayer removed. Fortunately in my school, we do observe moments of silence at some times and also sing all sorts of Christmas songs. I wouldn't have it any other way.


17 posted on 11/08/2004 2:05:27 PM PST by moog (a "liberal" teacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: valence; Tailgunner Joe
I bet you are all for the first line but let me ask you, what if it was Islamic integration into our government?

      "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!"
Patrick Henry

      I'm convinced that it simply did not occur to the Founding Fathers that their words would ever be construed to apply to the worship of anyone other that the God of Christianity and Judaism.  And I am also convinced that the "god" of Mohammad was not the God of Abraham. 

      Tailgunner Joe's quote in post 13 is on point.  The phrase "an establishment of religion" has a clear meaning, but that meaning is often distorted today.
18 posted on 11/08/2004 8:03:27 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"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."

This is one part of the "anti-separation of church and state" argument that I have always found not just unconvincing, but misleading. People of faith, as evidenced by the recent election, influence politics and government all the time, and this is as it should be. The President can quote scripture in speeches, include homilies, etc. Congress can start each day with a prayer. Religious people can elect religious legislators who shape law based on religious principle. Happens all the time.

Some of us who still advocate this "separation" of church and state do so based on the idea that government should not be in the business of advancing a specific religion in its official acts. Christians are free to shape and influence government, but government has no business in shaping or influencing the religious faith, Christian or otherwise, of the people. More plainly put, government should not be in the religion business.

One of the arguments I've rarely seen well addressed over such issues as school prayer is on what religion should such prayers be based. The answer is usually either "we're a Christian nation, so prayers should be non-sectarian Christian prayers" or "prayers should reflect the faith of the community." The problem is that like it or not, America is a pluralistic nation, and while most Americans profess to be Christian, nearly every "community" will contain people of different faiths or different brands of Christianity. Whose faith prevails? This is one area where "majority rules" doesn't hold. Just as Christians would be understandably outraged if schools required the reading of Mulsim prayers or perhaps Dyanetics, others may be outraged by similar treatment of Christian prayers.

Federalist arguments that the states are or should be free to regulate these matters have a better provenance but the history is still complex. But the so-called "wall of separation of church and state," to my mind, in no way inhibits Christians or other people of faith from influencing government.

Of course, I've never quite gotten the apparent need of some Christians for government to legitimize their faith by supporting Christian prayer or religious displays.

Cheers.


19 posted on 11/09/2004 9:34:43 AM PST by ssterns (now the shore lights beckon...you know there's a price for being free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ssterns
Abortionist Democrats do everything they can to keep religious judges off the bench, because they know people who believe in God, and therefore believe in right and wrong, will not abide the wanton murder of innocent babies. They want those in power who believe they will never be judged for their crimes by a Higher Power.

They even banned a state license plate in Louisiana that said "Choose Life" because they said it violated Separation of Church and State. What part of "Choose Life" is a religious message? Can't the irreligious choose life too? Including the word "choose" did not faze the baby murderers one bit, because they don't really want choice. It's not really about choice, it's about killing off the babies of sections of the populace they don't like.

20 posted on 11/09/2004 5:26:29 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe (No King but King Jesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


21 posted on 12/20/2004 1:10:40 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla

bttt


22 posted on 12/21/2005 6:57:41 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods
Massachusetts Constitution; First Part, Article II (1780) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe..."

Massachusetts Constitution; First Part, Article II (1780) "The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless...he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Massachusetts Constitution; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) "[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. 'I,_____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth..'.."

Pennsylvania Constitution; Declaration of Rights II (1776) "...Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged to any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

Pennsylvania Constitution; Frame of Government, Section 10 (1776) "And each member [of the legislature]...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: 'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'"

Pennsylvania Constitution; Article IX, Section 4 (1790) "that no person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

South Carolina Constitution; Article XXXVIII (1778) "That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed...to be the established religion of this State."

Vermont Constitution; Frame of Government, Section 9 (1777) "And each member [of the legislature],...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: 'I do believe in one god, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.'"

24 posted on 07/07/2006 1:45:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

*


25 posted on 07/07/2006 1:49:04 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe
At the time of the writing of the constitution, 12 of the 13 colonies had SPECIFIC laws on the religious requirements for officeholders. They ranged from the mild (belief in God) to the specific (belief in the Trinity) and kept out Catholics, Jews, Anabaptists, atheists, etc., in their respective states. The First Amendment was specifically written to protect the states from the feds telling them that they CAN'T continue with religious barriers.

So, it was really enacted to ensure the mixing of state and church, the opposite of what we're taught in school. And, in case you're curious, Virginia was the only state w/o the requirement, but they were on their way to getting one in place. And, Massachusetts was the last state to get rid of these laws (1831, I believe).

26 posted on 07/07/2006 1:57:25 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe
...and here's the source (great book written by a law prof at Yale):


27 posted on 07/07/2006 2:01:01 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Indeed, the First Amendment was intended to protect state establishments of religion from any federal interference, but judicial activists "evolved" our "living, breathing" Constitution to make it mean the exact opposite.
28 posted on 07/07/2006 2:02:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Yep...I saw Prof Amar give a talk on God and the Constitution and my mouth hung open when he related these facts about religious barriers and the states. I bought the book and was happy I did. Even though he leans liberal, he is that rare lib, dedicated to historical accuracy. Thansk for posting this, TJ.


29 posted on 07/07/2006 2:05:50 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed November 4th, 1796:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty was ratified by Congress and signed by then-President John Adams, who proudly proclaimed it to the country.

30 posted on 07/07/2006 2:23:33 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point ...evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts; for in the handwriting of James Leander Cathcart is the statement ...that the Barlow translation is "extremely erroneous." - Miller, Hunter. "The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: The Barbary Treaties: Tripoli 1796. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm


31 posted on 07/07/2006 2:40:35 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

There are four documents in the Department of State file of this treaty.

The first to be noted is that which contains the original treaty. It is a book in the literal sense. There are fourteen pages of Arabic text;

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts; for in the handwriting of James Leander Cathcart is the statement quoted above that the Barlow translation is "extremely erroneous"; and while the Italian translation of the Arabic text on which that endorsement appears, presents its own linguistic difficulties, largely owing to its literal rendering and its consequent non-literary character as Italian, it is none the less in essence a reasonable equivalent of the Arabic. Indeed, allowing for the crudeness of the original Arabic and the changes which always result from a retranslation, it may be said that a rendering of the Italian translation into English gives a result which is in general not dissimilar from the English translation of Doctor Snouck Hurgronje of 1930; and of course the most cursory examination of the Italian translation would show (assuming the Italian to be even an approximation of the Arabic), that the Barlow translation, as Cathcart wrote, was "extremely erroneous"; but nothing indicating that the Italian translation was even consulted has been found, and it does not appear that it was ever before 1930 put into English. Some account of the Italian translation as a document is given above.

32 posted on 07/07/2006 2:49:04 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Excellent article;

The first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights are most certainly, if read by most anyone with some common understanding of the English language, aimed squarely at protecting the rights of the citizens.

The Ninth Amendment states that no matter what the order of the rights named in the Constitution, whether it is the first or the last, their enumeration doesn't matter as to their relevance or importance.

You stated;

"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."


Very well stated...

The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.

Imagine that!!! Granting full power to the (1)states or (2)the people on any matter that is not clearly delegated by the Constitution through pre-existing, agreed upon law(Constitution) to the Federal Government, which, by the way, can only be changed by a 3/4 majority vote of...

GUESS WHO!!!!

The STATES, which are controlled by, THE PEOPLE...

So why has this gotten so out of hand??

Maybe we all need to remind those on Capitol Hill of the Tenth Amendment.
33 posted on 07/07/2006 3:20:31 PM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods

Some did and some didn't. That's why each state was allowed to decide for themselves. It's called Federalism.


35 posted on 07/07/2006 4:40:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods
If you don't like the references to religion in your state's Constitution, you are free to go join your voice with the people of some other state which is more in line with your values, or lack thereof.
37 posted on 07/07/2006 4:43:39 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods

Please see posts 31 and 32. The "translation" of that treaty is bogus, in fact it's an outright fabrication. No such clause was ever ratified.


39 posted on 07/07/2006 4:54:05 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods

The phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the US constitution, but it is in the Soviet Union's Constitution. Too bad for you the USSR is no more. You can still move to France though if you prefer official godlessness.


41 posted on 07/07/2006 4:56:40 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe

Just to clarify, Yale Law school has it wrong but you have it correct?


43 posted on 07/07/2006 5:05:20 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe
Read the official records for yourself.

The official treaty is in arabic (which is what the problem is). I don't read arabic. And I think I'll take Yale Law Schools word over yours. (Yale being such a bastion of conservatism)

And just to clarify further, the Treaty of Tripoli isn't the Constitution nor does it equal it.

45 posted on 07/07/2006 6:36:40 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe; DJ MacWoW
Double Standards
46 posted on 07/07/2006 6:38:30 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DocRock; FrankWoods; Tailgunner Joe
Yikes!

My policy is to never believe what anyone says (especially if it supports your view)

Then the whole point is arguement and not debate.

47 posted on 07/07/2006 6:55:30 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; FrankWoods
"Then the whole point is arguement and not debate."

Which is obvious when considering Frank dug up this article from 11/04 which was last bumped on 12/05. Something smells like ozone.
48 posted on 07/07/2006 7:00:31 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DocRock; FrankWoods
Which is obvious when considering Frank dug up this article from 11/04 which was last bumped on 12/05. Something smells like ozone.

Yup. I had checked him out a few days ago and noticed the threads he posts on.

User Posts

49 posted on 07/07/2006 7:05:10 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

That is how I found out he was digging up a thread almost 2 years old. ; )


50 posted on 07/07/2006 7:10:31 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 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