Todd Richmond wrote:
>It amazes me that a high court of law can be so ignorant of what the
>Constitution actually says, that they could make this the pillar of
>their reasoning. There is no tenet, not even a clause, that says
>there should be a seperation of church and state. The Constitution
>merely says that the government cannot promote a particular
>religion, i.e., there can be no state religion, something the
>Founding Fathers feared because of their experiences with the
>Anglican church in England. That state-sponsored church was the
>reason many of the colonists came over here in the first place!
Todd:
You have done an EXCELLENT job of making the case. You're exactly
right, and thank you for taking the time to respond.
The only thing I would like do to add to your paragraph above is to
say that the Constitution doesn't merely prohibit the government's
PROMOTION of a given religion, but it also limits the government's
PERSECUTION of a given religion and its followers.
The 9th Circus Court's ruling favors the religion of secular humanism
and shuns any other religion which has a 'god.' (not JUST
Christianity) Not only that, but the court's ruling forces the
beliefs of a few upon the majority.
When liberals start pointing their fingers, they've always got three
more fingers pointing back at themselves. It's really quite humorous
to watch.
Now
where'd I put that Nomex?
--
Pete Chadwell
1973 TR6
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|