This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


greecny

Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution

An upstate New York town violated the constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity, a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday.

In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal.

From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.

Galloway and Stephens sued and, in 2010, a lower court ruled there was no evidence the town had intentionally excluded other faiths.

Continue reading at seattletimes.nwsource.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Evermyrtle

    What constitution are they talking about. There is nothing that resembles that in the Constitution that i know. Maybe they have a different one in New York.. is there nyway to find out.

  • eVERMYRTLE

    Separation of state and state, this lie is still plauges us. This nation was settled with JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOR of those people who sacrificed so much for their faith in HIM. I am so glad tht hey can not know of this diviation from our wonderful Savior

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      While it is true the exact words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, the concept is certainly there. And even more important than it just a concept, we have the founders who discussed this issue when the country was initially formed.

      Thomas Jefferson made sure the intent of this clause was well understood with his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In this letter he stated very clearly that there was a "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the expression "Separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson didn't see himself as writing a minor, unimportant letter because he had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general, before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

      James Madison: At age eighty-one [therefore, in 1832?], both looking back at the American experience and looking forward with vision sharpened by practical experience, Madison summed up his views of church and state relations in a letter to a "Reverend Adams": "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others." (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad, 1987, p. 39.)

      • Evermyrtle

        We just read the concepts into the Constitution, and make it say what we want it to say.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          The Founders were the ones who wrote the document. Having the authors of a document explain what the concepts are is not the same as others giving their opinion on the issue.

  • millergroup2

    Separation of state and state is not and never will be written within The Constitution of the United States of America. If anyone can prove differently, please show your findings here, so that all of America can be brought up to speed. Thank you!

    (for example: An author titles his book, "The sky is blue". The reader interprets and says the mindset of the author was to express his feelings, so the reader reports to the people that the author meant that there is no sky. This is personal interpretation, just like the personal interpretation of the Constitution. Fact is the author said that "The sky is blue". How on earth can it be interpreted differently?

    • Wise old guy

      Correct! There is no place in the Constitution that anyone can show me the words, "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"! Those words were written down by Thomas Jefferson in a letter, and since "adopted" by the anti religious left, as a basis for some argument. Pure poppycock!

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Show me the word Trinity in the bible.

        • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

          There is nothing you can see in the Bible to begin with Dixon so why he would do that for?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The point, Humpty, is that a concept can be there without the word(s) being there. Man, you are so dense, it is absurd. The concept of separation is in the Constitution without the actual words being there.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            As usual sub high school level mumbling and oblivious shallowness. You are a prisoner of ignorance.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The Founders and the Supreme Court agree with my view. You can call it anything you like, but it only shows what a blowhard you are.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Yawn…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You yawn when you are unable to refute information. Idiot.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dodo there is nothing to refute and nobody to do that for.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Jeff using the "i" word again. At least I haven't seen the word "myth" used for some time. Maybe this can be considered progress. I am not holding my breath though.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Hey, at least he learned the difference Goads and gonads. Here is a song with that line but different word I wonder if Dodo knows it in this meaning:
            http://bit.ly/Kr04kT

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            We have been discussing the Constitution on this thread. The Constitution is not a myth. Your stupidity knows no boundaries.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dodo, come down you might break something.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am fine where I am. On the right side of reason, logic and the Constitution.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Hahhahaa dangerous clown you are Dodo

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Jeff, you are devoid, to this point, of logic and reason. Further, you probably have never read the entire Constitution–as you are too busy plagiarizing poorly written material against Christ and the Universe's God.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            As an aside, you seem pretty comfortable explaining how we have development within time by just adding zeros to any number you choose–as an elaboration for your inane thoughts on origin. However, can you begin to explain how space came about? Let me hear your fantastic ideas.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Someone by the name of Dixon once said: don't tell me what to discuss in what thread (paraphrase–don't go into conniptions Jeff). I am discussing the reality of the Bible and how it affects your life. Thanks for giving me permission. Further, I submit to you that the present day existence, alone, of the Jewish community and Israel, in general, is sufficient to prove the objective validity of the Bible and Jesus' position in our lives. Enough in fact, to cause that agnostic Dawkins to turn around and become a believer–if he ever but submits to objective truth.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Thank you for this gibberish. It says it all.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            At least you didn't use the "i" word. You probably did not even read what I wrote down.

        • Joe Anzilotti

          Show me evidence for "cephalization" Jeffrey.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
          • Joe Anzilotti

            Yes, tell me about it Jeff, an organism without any neurons feels that a brain is needed, and a head, and decides to form one over an absurd contrived length of time by passing this "desire" or decision on to other "progeny" who do not have a brain. The no brain part reminds me of you.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Reminds me him as well and the the callous heart I had too which he has still.

            Brother, felt like I needed to share that with you:
            http://bit.ly/M67Dgn ~ Dr. Joel Beeke

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Thanks Despe, I will try to take a look at it. God bless. May God bless our friend Jeff as well. : )

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            May God bless Dixon.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Hey Despe, would Dr. Beeke happen to be well known by you? His sermon title is wonderfully appropriate for the self-indulgent crowd today–I think that you will understand what I mean.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            I know of him and not personally. He is solid. More here: http://bit.ly/KzI7hF

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Can you send that link again for "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? By Edwards? Thanks!

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Here it is. First time preached in Enfield, Connecticut July Th, 1741 and as fresh as yesterday:

            http://youtu.be/TtHijgqceXo

          • Joe Anzilotti

            It is, in fact, acute for today. You are right. Thank you. Just completed reading Tyndale's–The Obedience of a Christian Man–great writing. I think that you would enjoy going through it–we have talked about this work a bit before. Have started on Stephen Charnock's–The Existence and Attributes of God. From the 17th Century. These brothers wrote to make a difference for God. Not to improve their accounts in a Swiss Bank. That, in fact, is something that is ruining the quality of present day "Christian" writing. It is a crying shame that our Christian heritage has come to this–meet the needs of my wallet! At least that is what seems to be going on, by and large, from my perspective. A lot of dear brothers don't see that; however, that is ok. It is my opinion though, and I have seen plenty of evidence for that. God bless you Despe. We have prayed for you at my house. :-)

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Thank you brother and God knows how those prayers are needed and appreciated. Yes, I agree anything that is profound has been written and published hundreds of years ago. Whatever is publish nowadays is at best recap of that or mostly a horrible nonsense and cop-out form Biblical faith. Thank you again.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Actually, upon further review Jeff, cephalization is something that you should consider implementing for yourself.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Note: yet again, no reply from Jeff when he cannot answer a charge. Surprising really!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your comments are idiotic. They require no response.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            You never had any real response Dixon as so many here observed and posted about. You are a cocksure moron who confuses his arrogance and ignorance with knowledge. The most dangerous type of imbecility.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            If that is all you can say, call someone "idiotic" about what they remark–I am honored, and my remarks stand as written. You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, when the data goes against your unfounded conclusions you will not consider the other's remarks–not even out of respect for another's views. Very poor Jeff. Pawn of Satan, as I already noted. Your feet will slip–it is just a question of waiting and watching.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Yes Joe. Dixon's feet shall slip in due time and his catharsis is coming. He has been deceived: God will not be mocked. Dixon will reap what he sows.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            A myth cannot know if it was mocked or not.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dodo that was really insightful. Can you give is another nugget of your philosophy?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It was insightful. Your delusional views do not discount that.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Hey that is real funny Dixon–Ah, ah
            You are just one hilarious individual.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You and I am both humorous. The difference between you and I is that I am humorous on purpose. You are humorous for the stupidity you post.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Is "Providence" against you Jeff? Thanks Despe : )

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Well Jeff? Are you going to implement that "cephalization" process for yourself? It can only help you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Since it is obvious you have no idea that one cannot implement this process for themselves, trying to explain it to you is pointless.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            You gave no idea what the point is so do not mumble about being "pointless".
            Deuteronomy 32:35

          • Joe Anzilotti

            By the way Jeff, I am sure I have heard your inane explanation of how DNA came from nothing over a zillion years X 1000 and how all of a sudden this unthinking DNA in a single celled organism decided it needed a head blah, blah, blah. Sort of like how a smart phone formed all by itself over the years, because someone like you needs a smart phone to "function" in life. Of course we have not even addressed the issue of "space" existing for all of this unguided development to take place within its boundaries. Don't start with your Barbara Streisand. You can't handle it.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dixon is a crude sociopath with Google search window.

          • Glen S

            sociopath:
            a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

            Well, considering this strict definition does not fit Dixon; this charge is quite unwarranted. In fact it demonstrates that you have just the same tendency when faced opinions for which you have disdain to dive into attack rather than logically present your case.

            Dixon may be many things but, a sociopath he is not. Further, by this statement you further demonstrate that Christ is not guiding what comes out of your mind onto your keyboard.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Thanks Glen but in case you do not know there are other more precise or more borader definitions and you really do not know Dodo Dixon because you have not been here long enough. As to your attestation if is just laughable. What if I tell you that God calls Dodo a moron and that is straight from the Bible in Romans 1:22 for example…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, just another example of a Christian brother who disagrees with you. How utterly unsurprising.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dodo it takes more than few posts to have a semblance where one stands in these matters. This is not McDonald's Dodo. I know you are used to assert the things by the speed of Google searches but that is not real Dodo.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            By the way I forgot to say that you are a real moron Dodo and I repeat that after Paul and God the Holy Spirit as in Romans 11:22

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Romans 1:22 Dodo. Check it out, it is about your Dodo.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Gasp, comments from others who share your delusion. Oh no, whatever shall I do???????

            Hmm, continue on with reality and never worry about delusions would be the correct answer.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have never once stated that a treait was developed because the organism "decided" it needed it. You may have read my comments, but it obvious you do not comprehend them.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            No, the cell without a brain did not decide anything of course, the whole thing happened purely by chance–the single celled organism and afterwards the brain. Just keep adding zeros there for an adequate number of years. Is that more in line with your "reasoning"?

          • Joe Anzilotti

            I know that you have not stated anything Jeff, all of your posts are plagiarized. Thanks for the reminder.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            :)

          • Joe Anzilotti

            You are as much of a farce as Farcebook.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are beyond silly. I have never said Facebook was a wonderful thing. Your comments get more absurd and desperate daily.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Dodo, you never said anything… That much is true.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yet, you still reply to my nonexistent comments. Hmm, how odd. It is almost as if you do not understand what nonexistent means.

          • http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

            Joe

            Here is a song with a line that Dodo learned from you so unfortunately few weeks back:
            http://bit.ly/Kr04kT

  • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

    "Christian Constitutionalists often point out that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is found in the Constitution of the USSR, not the Constitution of the United States. This is true. Nevertheless, the mandate for separation of church and state is inherent in Article 6 on two levels: 1) The Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the land, which makes any law (secular or Biblical) contrary to this 'supreme law' null and void and non-executable by the Constitutional Republic, 2) Religious qualifications for government officials are denied, which prohibits Biblical qualifications."

    For more, see Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….

    • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

      The separation of church and state may be "inherent" in Article 6, it may even be implied, but it is NOT written anywhere that there should be a separation of church and state. What is truly stated in the 1st Amendment is that the government shall not establish a religion, and the government shall not interfere with the practice of religion. In essence, the 1st Amendment was written to keep government OUT of religion, not to keep religion out of government. There is nothing unconstitutional about Christian prayer in public ceremonies and or meetings, anymore than public displays of the Ten Commandments. Both of which according to the Constitution of the United States of America are totally and completely "Constitutional".

      • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

        Watchman because it was already inherent and implied, Amendment 1 did not need to restate it.

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          Quite the contrary Ted, I believe the 1st Amendment did need to be restated, as your original statement seemed to omit the gist of the amendment. There are many people who know what the 1st Amendment says, but aren't quite sure how it's intent is to be interpreted, so it was for the purpose of clarification. One thing to keep in mind Ted: Man made laws can be amended, added to, expunged and broken and even simply ignored. God's laws are forever, and everyman will be judged by the Lord in a right and just way, and each man will receive his due. Earthly judges are constantly restructuring constitutional law, that is why Constitutional Law has been cast aside and law schools teach case law. God's laws are constant, the Ten Commandments still mean the same thing they did as the day Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain. No human judge can change them. Although there is an idiot human judge who believes the Ten Commandments should be whittled down to 6. As if God gave him the power. God Help Us

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Other than your first two sentences, thanks for making my point. I think you missed my point in my original email. However, that's fine, provided we agree that Yahweh's law is the supreme law and are constant.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            I must have. It is good we are on the same page, isn't it? "All is well"!

      • Walt

        Well said watchman. The Constitution is the document that gives the government power over the citizens, yet on the other hand it does something greater, it limits the power of the governement over the people.

        God Bless
        Walt

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          Thanks Walt! God bless you and yours.

      • rjim

        I agree with your statements!!! George Washington took the oath at Federal Hall on Wall Street to become our 1st President of the US and walked from there to St. Paul's Chapel to attend services and pray along with the entire congress. There was a whole day of prayer. Washington also attended services at St. Paul's during the two years New York City was the country's capital. Above Washington's pew is an 18th-century oil painting of the Great Seal of the United States.
        From what I understand the U.S. Government even published Bibles.
        And So I think God overrules the Court!

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          The Christian Bible was actually the first text book approved for use in America's schools, by congress.The exact date escapes me at the moment.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It was not approved by Congress for use in the schools. They reviewed the bible that Aitken's printed and stated it was a good job of printing the book. Few American printers at this time were printing books. Most limited their businesses to broadsides, pamphlets, and newspapers. The books that were printed in America were not only more expensive than those imported from England, but had a reputation for being full of errors. Printing an accurate edition of a book as large as the Bible was a monumental task for any printer, and Congress wanted it known that an American printer had accomplished it.

            Here is the actual Resolution from Congress:

            Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.(9)

            Aitken actually asked Congress for quite a bit more than they gave him. In addition to his work being examined by the chaplains, Aitken requested that his Bible "be published under the Authority of Congress,"(10) and that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures."(11) He also asked Congress to purchase some of his Bibles and distribute them to the states. Congress did not grant any of these other requests. The only help Aitken ever got from Congress was the resolution endorsing the accuracy of his work.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/no-mr-b…

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Jeff, I've missed you.Are you quoting things from the huffington post?Once again, your all knowing, all seeing mind is spewing someone else's rhetoric.But hey thanks for the useless info.

      • Janee

        I totally agree with you. The purpose stated was so a religion like the Church of England would not be controlling the colonies. IE: the government shall not establish a religion. People take this completely out of context. If you look at scripture of the OT it is like our forefathers and God made a covenant and He blessed it as long as we kept our end of it.

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          You're absolutely correct Janee, thanks for your comments, I do so appreciate them.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            The things mentioned here are nice, but they don't amount to a hill of beans when compared with the Constitution itself, which, in some fashion, in nearly every article and amendment is found antithetical to, if not hostile, to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). Folks, we've been lied to, the Constitution is neither Biblical nor Christian.

            Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org... and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Jeanine is correct Ted. Our/America's founding fathers were constantly, and intently seeking God's divine wisdom as they were in contemplation of the drawing up and discussing the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution. I would venture to say all of them prayed for God's infinite grace during their meetings. You must understand that every man who signed the Declaration of Independence knew wholeheartedly that they were in fact signing their own death warrant. "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Truly these men were inspired through Divine Providence. In essence, simply because the Constitution does not read like the Holy Bible, doesn't mean it wasn't Divinely inspired. Unlike today's congress, our founders had a number of things in common: They were God fearing men, and they prayed together for God's wisdom and grace. I would venture to say, "All was well with their souls."

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Watchmen, this is not an issue of reading like the Bible. So, please tell me how something antithetical and even hostile to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty can be divinely inspired? Madison, Franklin and others of the framers certainly didn't think it was inspired. Patrick Henry wouldn't even attend the Philadelphia convention as one of Virginia's delegates because, as he put it, "he smellt a rat!"

            Divine inspiration implies perfection. The Constitution provides for it's own amendment – the Bible, on the other hand, condemns any amendment (adding to or taking away therefrom). Which, pray tell me, was inspired? Amendment 18 that provided for prohibition or Amendment 21 that provided for its repeal?

            The idea that the Constitution is divinely inspired can be traced back to the Mormon's "Doctrine and Covenants." Are you, by chance, a Mormon?

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Well Ted, I guess you should be living somewhere holier than America.It is my considered opinion that God was instrumental in the drafting of both the Declaration and the Constitution.You keep talking of Yahweh's morality.Don't you not remember that we are all sinners and come short of the glory of God.There has only been one perfect man since the beginning Adam (before he sinned), and that was Jesus the Christ.Comparing a man made document to "Yahwh's perfect morality" is a exrcise in futility at best.One more thing, just because something is divinely inspired does not imply perfection.No, I am not a Mormon, not that it matters.You sir are looking for spiritual perfection among human sinners.You must be so very disappointed all the time, as there is no one spiritually perfect.If you want to look for the totla antithisis of the Constitution, look to Islam.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            What! You can do better than this. Stay on point. This is even worth responding to.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            But you did respond, didn't you?I knew you couldn't resist.

    • Jeanine

      Our founders wrote repeatedly about the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". You might think it means something environmental but it does not. It means our founders based our Constitution on Biblical laws, found in Deuteronomy and Numbers. Our founders took a two hour break from the first Constitutional Convention to pray, because they could not come to agreement. Once the Constitution was settled, they closed with another two hour prayer session. The first thing they did was to order Bibles for all schools, so that ALL children would learn to read, and do so from the Bible. They then opened Congress once a week for prayer, and this was open to all denominations. It takes more than the most obvious information to know what exactly the framers intended. They understood that no Republic could stand without "Divine Providence". Washington prayed constantly, and even the Native American's believed he had Divine guidance and protection. Separation—no way. No law could stand if it violated "Nature's God or Nature's Law", which is based on the Bible. Period.

      • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

        Jeanine: "Our founders took a two hour break from the first Constitutional Convention to pray, because they could not come to agreement. Once the Constitution was settled, they closed with another two hour prayer session."

        I'd like to see this documented. You might want to consider the following which contains a quote from Franklin's own diary:

        "Although it is true that four or five weeks into the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed “prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing upon our deliberations, be held in this assembly,” (Benjamin Franklin, &lt ;http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm.>) his proposal did not even merit a vote. (Robert Yates, “Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 197-98.) Franklin wrote, “The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” (. Benjamin Franklin, quoted in William Templeton Franklin, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (London, UK: Henry Colburn, 1818, 3rd ed.) p. 195.) This alone is an abomination to Yahweh:

        '…I will cut off … them that are turned back from YHWH; and those that have not sought YHWH, nor inquired for him.' (Zephaniah 1:4-6)"

        Excerpted from Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….

      • Steve03

        "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is pure Deism, not orthodox Christianity as currently understood. Had they wished to create a Christian nation, they would have modified the British oath of office to something that excluded only non-Christians. Instead, the Constitution specified that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Artilce VI).
        The wording of the British oath prevented Roman Catholics as well as Jews and Moslems from holding civil or military office, and officers were required to be communicants of the Church of England. The communion requirement wasn't dropped until 1828, and the anti-Catholic wording lasted until 1829.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

          Steve03: "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is pure Deism, not orthodox Christianity as currently understood."

          Straight from the pen of deistic and antichrist Jefferson.

  • msjallen

    "When we stop being a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under." Pres. Reagan
    Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bears rule, the people mourn….
    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

  • petroskhan1262

    While I have my doubts as to whether or not the Constitution has any Christian principles inherent in its wording, writings of the founders make their Christian viewpoints very clear. They firmly stated in many writings their belief that the God of the Bible was the One whose guidance and support was and is needed to protect this nation.

    I think judges need to study some history.

  • bighoss

    Here we go again, with claims by the true believers that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

    Grow up and face reality, folks. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause make it clear to all except the terminally dense that separation of church and state is intended in the First Amendment. Personal expressions of faith by the founders and framers are unrelated to this obvious conclusion. The obvious favoritism and exclusivity for Christianity shown in the public governmental meetings in Greece, New York are in clearly in violation of this Constitutional principle. That is the way it is. The courts of this land have repeatedly concluded so. Live with it. Your irrelevant and ignorant caviling will change nothing.

    • Millergroup2

      Bull poo poo

      • bighoss

        Your detailed and substantive analysis of the issue will, I am sure, impress many–assuming that "many" consists of those with IQs are about equal to their shirt collar sizes.

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          bighoss, after a statement like that, you should change your name to: "bighoss'spatoot".

          • bighoss

            After a statement like YOURS, you should change YOUR name to "Clueless Cretin."

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Good come back, and speaking of clueless, you are, aren't you?

          • bighoss

            Actually, NO. I rely on evidence, documentation and substance, not attempted cuteness such as constitutes your feckless and impotent basis for discussion.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Hey do you know Jeff Dixon?You should get together with him, as both of you are constant spewers of inane rhetoric.You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the puss.God Bless You, even if you don't believe in Him.I will keep you in my prayers hoss.

          • bighoss

            It is your erroneous conclusion that I do not believe in God. Believing in separation of church and state does not mean that I do not believe in God. It is only your compromised "logic" that would drive you to such an erroneous conclusion. I have been a Christian for 60 years, have taught Sunday school to several different age groups, have preached a number of times, never for compensation, and am currently a deacon.

            Kindly stop invoking your particular religio-political perspectives as criteria for determining the religious status of persons you know very little about.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            Okay, Okay, Okay hoss, I've already ceded to your most obvious superior intellect. However, if you truly believe that God should be separated from state, then you must believe that state is your god. In my life, God comes first, and always first, especially before the state. God should be consulted in all things prior to decision making, either in ones own life or that of ones state governing position. If you in your alleged Sunday school leadership and your Deacon-ship aren't teaching that the Lord comes before all things, then you have led your sheep astray. Your resume' doesn't impress me, as mine is of a similar stature. However I teach that the Lord comes first indecision making, always and without exception. Therefore, church must be included in state, and not separated from it.

          • bighoss

            Then kindly list what particular closely-held doctrines of YOUR church that you consider the state should endorse.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            The first amendment was intended to keep government out of religion.I don't want them to endorse any doctrines.However, Obama and his ilk have an obvious war declared on Christians and are holding Islam in high esteem.I see a real problem with that.I am a Christian, I attenda Southern Baptist church, but I do not claim to be a Baptist.Jesus did not found a religion.But just as government cannot and should not try to legislate morality, they should keep their noses out of the hallowed halls of the faithful.

    • keyboardshark

      The First Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

      Notice that the first word is "Congress". The First Amendment, if we read it just as it stands, tells us what Congress may or may not do. So I have to ask the question, If a city erects a cross on public property, for example, what does this have to do with Congress making a law? Obviously, absolutely nothing.

      The whole problem then is the unfortunate twisting of the meaning of the First Amendment by using a private letter out of its historical context to mis-interpret it to mean just the opposite of its original intent. The Amendments, yea even the whole Constitution itself, were designed to protect the people from the government, not the other way around.

      “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
      Patrick Henry quotes (American Lawyer, patriot, and orator, symbol of the American struggle for liberty, 1736-1799) http://thinkexist.com/quotes/patrick_henry/

      Private letters should not be used as a basis for interpreting our laws, regardless of who writes them, and especially, in the case of the First Amendment, where such a use radically changes the plain meaning of the words that one would understand simply from an ordinary reading. Jefferson himself thought our laws should be plain in their meaning:

      "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
      – Thomas Jefferson
      (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
      Source: Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.J…

      The phrase "Congress shall make no law" clearly indicates that it is a limit on Congress, yet somehow it has filtered all the way down to the local level, and is even used against the very people the Amendment was designed to protect. The mythical 'separation of church and state' unfortunately lives on, despite the fact that Jefferson himself attended church services in the US Capitol Building for several years.

      "Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War.

      Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.

      The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President." http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp…

      Once these slippery-slope interpretations have taken hold, loss of freedom is sure to follow.

      "Do the people of this land…desire to preserve those [liberties] protected by
      the First Amendment… If so, let them withstand all beginnings of encroachment.
      For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanquished liberty
      is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch for a saving hand
      while yet there was time."
      – George Sutherland
      (1862-1942) U. S. Supreme Court Justice
      Source: Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 1937 http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.S…
      Reply to:

      • bighoss

        Of the telling of many anecdotes about the personal behavior and personal utterances of the Founders there is no end, but those things do not write constitutions or make laws. Check out the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter of separation of church and state if you wish to get yourself adequately informed on that matter. David Barton is not your friend.

        • keyboardshark

          bighoss says: "David Barton is not your friend."

          Are you implying that he lied about church services being held in the Capitol Building and Thomas Jefferson attending them, even as President? Did you even go to the article for which I gave the link? Everything there is thoroughly referenced.

          Since Jefferson did indeed attend church services at the Capitol Building, when he wrote in his private letter about the "wall of separation" he obviously meant something far different than the modern liberal interpretation. The First Amendment has now morphed into something it was never intended to do–outlaw religious expression on government property. Rather, it clear states what Congress may not do, not what the people may not do.

          • bighoss

            Barton and others have promoted a lot of "quotes" from the Founders that the Founders did not write or utter.
            http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4053

            <<<Described as a "Christian historical revisionist," Barton is attributed with not only authoring the following quotes which "the culture warriors of the Religious Right never tire of repeating … ad infinitum and ad nauseam, .. "The United States of America are a Christian Nation.""The founding fathers were evangelical Christians.""Church-state separation is a liberal myth." but is also credited with making up supporting quotes, "such as the following one that is COMPLETELY BOGUS, but still circulating in Christian Right circles."

            "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." –FICTIONAL QUOTE attributed to James Madison.>>>
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_…

            More, from an atheist source. And it is unfortunate that there are not any evangelical sources that have had the integrity to reject the pretensions of the revisionist David Barton:
            http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm

            NOW do you see why many have found Barton not to be worthy of their trust?

          • keyboardshark

            bighoss says: "Barton and others have promoted a lot of "quotes" from the Founders that the Founders did not write or utter. "

            Maybe, except this had nothing to do with the Barton page I referenced, which simply offered historically-documented evidence that Church services were held in the Capitol Building on a regular basis, and that Thomas Jefferson attended said services, even at the time of his infamous letter. I did not supply any quotes from Barton's site, which is apparently the basis of your arguments against him.

            I cannot vouch for the validity of ANYONE'S quotes that they may offer, whether conservative or liberal, UNLESS they can point to an original source document. In the case of the church services in the Capitol Building, that is well documented, which is why I chose to offer that as clear evidence that Jefferson's understanding of "separation of church and state" was obviously far different than the modern, liberal interpretation that criminalizes religious expression on government property.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Congress has always exempted itself from rules it places on the rest of the country.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "Congress has always exempted itself from rules it places on the rest of the country."

            Maybe so, but the use of the US Capitol Building as a church began even before Congress occupied it for legislative purposes, and its use as a church continued until the mid-1800's. Why was there no great outcry from the public or legal challenges presented to the courts to stop the practice all those years if they thought it was a violation of 'separation of church and state'?
            http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Why would you assume there would be a great outcry from the public?

          • keyboardshark

            Why would you assume there wouldn't, if they thought there was a Constitutional violation by holding church services in the Capitol Building?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            What the Constitution allows and what the public objects to are not the same thing.

          • keyboardshark

            And the Constitution, as it is written, knows nothing about a mythical 'separation of church and state' in which citizens are prohibited from religious expression on government property.

        • gene

          The Supreme Court has gotten her interpretations of the Constutition wrong on several occasion. So just because the U. S. Supreme Court decides it does not make it so. I would not take their decisions as the final matter on the subject. And she is wrong on these decisions. Bighoss, can you not understand what you read in the Constitution? Keyboardshark has it right.

          • bighoss

            Yes, I can, and I can understand and appreciate how the Supreme Court has reached its conclusions in the matter. You, obviously can not or will not.

    • janee

      The purpose stated was so a religion like the Church of England would not be controlling the colonies. IE: the government shall not establish a religion. People take this completely out of context. I

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      You live with this: Christians are here, the Bible is here, and neither is going away. Christians may express that faith publicly, read the Bible publicly. So, we may have to live with some things, but so will you.

    • FleshProfitsNothing

      I'm sooo tired of hearing about this supposed seperation…it is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. I GUESS THAT IS WHY THE STATE KEEPS TELLING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN NOT DO…eh??

  • Ruth Walker

    They should have known it was inappropriate without a complaint. So many people mischaracterize the Constitution! (Some of the confusion may be because there WERE some state religions but no federal one until the Fourteenth Amendment required all levels of government to protect the federal freedoms.)

    The Supreme Court clarified it when it ruled unanimously in 1878 (Reynolds v United States) that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices" else it would "permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

    It's offensive to lots of Christians who understand history (not what's been rewritten in order to turn the country into a theocracy). Some even believe Jesus meant it when he was reported in Matthew 6 to instruct to pray in private (and not ask for anything).

    Reminder: Even pacifists have to pay taxes that support war! So much for the misinformation about the meaning of freedom of religion.

    • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

      erroneous

      • bighoss

        You might be a "Watchman" but you are no contributor to the dialogue when you constantly post one liners that have no substance whatsoever. Grow up.

        • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

          Okay, how about, bighoss'spatoot, just made another erroneous statement.

          • bighoss

            That comment measures up to the others you have posted, which is to say it is useless and inane.

          • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

            hey, slow down big fella, I can't keep up with your insults, you must be way smarter than I am.I yield to your greater intellect, not!

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      Praying in private is one way to pray but not the only way.

  • Korean Vet Ray

    THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY was originly created and funded by the Congress of the United States, much like the United States Posta Service.
    Its purpose was for distribution and conversion of the "heathed indians," to Christianity.

  • David in MA

    So many comments, so little fact!

    • keyboardshark

      David in MA says: "So many comments, so little fact!"

      If you really believe that, then I must assume you have not actually read through very many of the posts in detail. Not to toot my own horn, but in my post above I presented several documented facts and quotes, and others have as well.

      Perhaps you have some facts you'd care to present?

  • FleshProfitsNothing

    I'm sooo tired of hearing about this supposed seperation…it is not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. I GUESS THAT IS WHY THE STATE KEEPS TELLING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN NOT DO…eh??