the Myth of Seperation of Church and State

The American people have been lied to for many years…

No where in the Constitution does it allow Christians to be persecuted like they are these days.

No where in the Constitution does it allow Atheists to have a religion, (Atheism) protected by the Government, If a Cross represents and or depicts an establishment, of a religion then the lack of a Cross
at a Grave, deprives a Christian of the same.  

Can I saw that it is stupid to believe that Christianity was not already an established religion before the Constitution was written.   Yes, you hear correctly, Establish, means To set up, to create, to ensure or to otherwise generate and fabricate. 

How can you create what has already been created.  This nation was created, established as a nation of believers, who are free to pursue their own brand of beliefs including religion, this includes the lack of a religion which itself is a religion, and why not, who else would put such energy into fighting God but someone that was a believer in non-belief.  As such non-belief, or the pursuit of Atheism, must be a religion just as the worship of any person or non person would be respected as a religion.  Under the constitution they are free to believe or not to believe they are free to believe in any prophet, or personage they wish.

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

One thing seems clear prohibiting, the free exercise of religion
is a violation and when you start to say that you can no longer
display a Christmas tree, in public, is that not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

This idea that the separation of Church and State requires that the government must interfere with every single interpretation of any prayer, or any other liberty this is just insanity.

 

The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers!

The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want – this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People!  Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.  We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax.  Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seventh). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.


ACLU Lawsuits?

So the ACLU can file a lawsuit on every hand, they can disrupt the lives of people and no one seems to mind or to even care, what would happen if the ACLU were to file a lawsuit against a man who was disabled and dying of a terminal illness, depriving him of his ability to receive medical treatment, would that be ok?

Sounds crazy right sure and it would be, but the thing here is this why is it so one sided, why is the ACLU the only one filing a lawsuit, some of these lawsuits that are filed are frivolous, (allegedly) tormenting schools that dare to try and pray, when the constitution guarantees that freedom of religion is a God given right. So, why do people allow the ACLU to get away with just suing and running at every hand once they have what they want?

Hopefully at some point someone would step up to the plate, and say you know what all your lawsuits aimed at the Christian faith is actually in Bad faith, and should not be allowed to continue.

Where is the ACLU in the Banning of Religion in the 911 Memorial, who ever heard of having a memorial without the clergy?

When is liberty no longer liberty, when the ACLU says it is?

This nation was founded upon the Freedom of Religion, yes, that means Christian, and Clergy and Catholic and Baptist, and Pentecostal, and other religions, it never applied the way those corrupt codgers and snakes said it did, you could say the sky is purple and polka dotted, if you wanted, but that would only be your opinion and probably not a popular one at that.

 

That would certainly make people think twice about all these lawsuits about religion which by the way is actually guaranteed long before any other thoughts on this issue, and of even more interest is the very real fact that what they say about the separation of Church and State was never meant to apply to prayer in the first place, what that was meant to do was to keep members of the Roman Catholic Church from holding both a high position in the Church and the Government, that was all it ever meant, and when men of high understanding apply logic to that interpretation then you must acknowledge that it is correct. Because never would have that been the case had it been worded that way the founding fathers made it clear, but somewhere in the past evil men twisted it into their own vile understanding.

 

But the common man understands the truth. The truth is that just because someone has an agenda against religion, does not mean that what they try to do is right, it only means that the people failed to stand up to the bullies of low rank. So the next time someone talks about supporting the ACLU consider what you are supporting, unless the ACLU begins to show that they are not biased in how they file their lawsuits, and that means supporting things for other than one side of the story or one side of the coin.

 

When they start doing that then they will receive much more support.

That is what they should be doing in stead of pursuing only one side against the other.


End of Days, Will Arnold care?

Remember the movie End of Days, a while back staring everyone favorite Governor or Governator, Well in a big news story that apparently an old and sadly senile 89 year old man, was touted by the media to be some sort of spokesman for all mankind, which proves only one thing.

The media is stupid.

And if you believe the nonsense that they are talking about online, then your in the same boat.

I find it more interesting that Arnold is not out of the spot light, and this elderly man who is far too old to be doing this kind of thing, I find it mildly offensive to listen to all the trash talking online in regard to haters, talking about hating Christians, the thing is here this one old man does not speak for anyone other than himself.

Even his neighbors, said the same thing and they have lived next door to him for 40 years.

So, if those that know this old man the best, say “bless his 89 year old heart” and mind probably, (allegedly) then why all the insane gossip on the networks,?  Want to know why?

Because they know they can get away with trashing Christians.

Why does the media talk trash about Christians and more importantly if every religion were to be examined in this way you are going to find some crack pots out there, but if this were about any other religion, would the media be talking about it?

Think about that for a moment…

Try doing this with other religions, and trash their beliefs and there would be demonstrations and threats every where and rightfully so, in fact when you see all this trash talking why is that?

I wish the media would get a life…

 


The rapture

Well in case you have not been watching the news today and several hundred billboards and posters all over the place, then you know that a prediction made by a 89 year old elderly man who you could easily say allegedly was a little senile, but the real story here is not the end of days or the rapture, but it is how the media makes a big deal out of one elderly dementia patient, (allegedly) and then proceeds to generalize the statements and predictions made by this man as if all Christians were a part of this belief systems.

The Media are Liars right, sure and that is not allegedly that is a fact.

The problem here is the double standard here that exists in the media, if there were about some other religions beliefs then this story would not have even received a moments notice, and you have to ask why is that?

The answer is simple if someone made fun of other religions, it would be that they were not tolerant.

If someone made snide remarks about another religions common beliefs they would be seen as hate speech.

But when it comes to Christians, apparently it is ok to make fun of them and to make remarks, but in the end, not matter what you believe, know this, it is just one man, this man does not represent the Christian movement at all, yet the media has done nothing to separate that fact from all the fiction that has been spewed all over the TV and the Internet.

It really makes no sense at all that the media would participate in this kind of gross negligence, (allegedly)

Warning this video is disturbing and might be offensive to some people, view at your own risk.


Ground Zero Anger

Will this be the final straw that causes the liberals to loose the 2010 election?

So its OK, to advocate for one religion over another, but is it really constitutional, what about separation of church and state, should the president really be coming out supporting a religion?

If we have one man that will “reach out” to the rest of the world, then you need to send out other religious leaders to “reach” out too.

See this has no ending, it is not only wrong but it is against the constitution.

Many people have questioned the need to have religious organizations build churches near ground zero.

It is a problem, because where do you stop?

What is a religion?

What is good enough to be worthy of being allowed to build?

What religion? Baptist? Pentecostal? Catholic?

What about, Wicca?

Or perhaps devil worship?

Where does it stop and why are we allowing a president to participate in something like this when the government has no interest in this type of issue, more specifically what about separation of church and state?

Did the president violate the premise of separation of church and state?

You see by giving an opinion as president it could be viewed as a real mistake, one has to ask the question, where does it stop?

Will we allow the KKK to have a temple or what about having a temple temple, just where does it end?

It you think that just mentioning the KKK is offensive, then you should carefully consider why a Mosque should be allowed to build near ground zero, because it is not good.

That is the real question here, it is not about the religion but about all religion, if you allow Muslims to build you have to allow all others to build as well, otherwise you have created a disparity between what is and what should be.

It is disturbing to see this kind of thing happen.

How can we allow one to build and say that all others cannot build, that is disturbing.

We should not be participating in discussions as the leader of a nation, picking a religion and saying its ok for these guys but not for all other religions?

If its OK, for one it has to be ok for all of them otherwise you have just created a constitutional issue where none existed before and that is also wrong.

We need real leadership.

Not opinions but real valid leadership based on experience, in 2012 we need someone that will keep the promises they make.

If as men and woman in this nation we cannot keep our word, then we are humanity will never succeed in all the things we hope to accomplish.