Separation of church and state apparently doesn't apply to everyone

None of the quotes, while interesting, matter.
The Constitution was designed, deliberately, to be godless. That's how we govern ourselves.

 

hondo, your question about what a muslim-dominated country would do is irrelevant. it's what we do in this country that we are talking about. not another one.

 

Fine.

Please to name one of the 50 states that currently sanctions a religion, as Yawn claims, upheld by a court that cited the U.S. Constitution. (Because surely, the evil ACLU would have challenged it.)

State/municipal governments are not exempt from having to follow the U.S. Constitution, as anyone who has completed seventh-grade civics knows.

That's not a "different interpretation." That's not "what I think." And it's not "because I say so."

You might not like my chain of logic, but it's superior to yours: "WAAAAAAAAAH!"

 

If you apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to all this...

The law reinstated the Sherbert Test, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In this, the court must first determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief; if these two elements are established, then the government must prove that it is acting in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

Those nativity scenes must be a threat to our national security.

 

Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words.

The Supreme Court has taken Jefferson's "separation" clause (divorced from Jefferson's own explanation of the phrase) and used it to create a new, and completely arbitrary, interpretation of the First Amendment.

In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, giving an absolute definition of the First Amendment Establishment Clause which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Hardly what Thomas Jefferson meant or what the constitution guaranteed!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.

This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."

The complete and radical disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes advocated now is not what they had in mind. It's clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State.

Recognizing their failure to win their arguments on fact, the lastest tactic among liberals is simply to deny the very documents that contain the facts.

 

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

First, get better taste in legal opinion.

Then, quit being a plagiarist. If you're going to post something in its entirety, use a link and quote it.

Then, apologize.

 

Like a human handpuppet, the boneless constitutional scholar speaks!

 

reread for hondo stupidity.

he damn near sounds ready to start a holy war based on others not believing in his jeebus.

outstanding shit hondo. outstanding.

hopefully my kids attend school with yours.

 

Right because he's the only one on these threads who cuts and pastes from other sites to make his point. Geezus, some of you need to get a grip.

 

Pot, meet kettle

 

Find another uncredited example or take a walk.
And The Jeremiah Project is a passel of theocratic loons. Pass it on. How do I know? Because the Madison "Ten Commandments" quote they use to illustrate the link provided has been debunked as a fraud by so many Madison scholars that not even old theocrat Barton uses it any more.