Odessa

Americans can’t have the power, and the wisdom of God since they kicked Him out sixty years ago, by establishing and illegal separation of Church and State, by trampling on the Ten Commandments, and by replacing the Bible with the theory of evolution in public education. Now Americans can only have the same simple mindlessness of the Amoeba, which consists of a mass of protoplasm resembling its contemporary offsprings, the American people

The whole world knows that America is a country made up mostly of money loving idiots, beginning with the idiots at the bottom, and going up, up, and up, to the very top. There are idiots everywhere, from the idiots teaching in schools, colleges, and universities, to the idiots of the mainstream news media, to the self-gagged idiots deceiving the dumbbells from the pulpits of America, to the political idiot in DC. Only a country made up of idiots would elect crooks and liars as their leaders, and enlist the enemy in the arm forces, and tolerate the enemy preaching hate against America in colleges, and universities all across America. And only a country made up of idiots would prohibit a child to read her Bible in school in her own time. America went from the home of the free and the brave, to the home of the dumbed-down idiots lacking the common sense that God gave geese.

The hypocrisy, and dualism of those so-called 501c3 self-gagged wolves in sheep clothing proponents of separation of church and state, having one foot in the church, and the other foot in the world, pretending to serve God, but in reality they are serving mammon, are the very same ones that allowed the wicked for the last sixty-two years to take over America by legalizing one abomination after another, such as Separation of Church and State, Forced Busing, Affirmative Action, Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, Sodomy, and Same Sex Marriage.

And the nominal wimpy Christians are too preoccupied massaging their bruised little egos, while worshiping the trinity of self, composed of, “ME, MYSELF, and I” and in search for a Jesus that is more in touch with their inner feelings, and for a Jesus that is more harmonious with their own perversions. They don’t see Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords; they see Jesus as Wimp of Wimps and Dumb of Dumbest. These so-called wimpy Christians talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. They know all the songs, and the Christian lingo, but they wobble and fall down when they are supposed to stand up against the wicked, therefore they are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, naked, and separated from Christ.

Wow. Just... Wow. That's an awful lot of bullshit in a single comment. And yet, totally off topic from the original post.

I guess I could try to refute each of your lies and distortions individually. But in the end... you're either willfully ignorant, or moronically stupid. Either way, no words of mine would ever cure your malady.

I'll just leave you with a little thought to ponder. The Separation of Church and State goes back to our founding fathers. Maybe the country the founded wasn't perfect, but I have a hard time believing that the first amendment, and thus the separation, is one of the things they got wrong. At the very least, it's been working very well for us for over two centuries.

The First Amendment to the Us Constitution was not enough to stop the tyrannical US Supreme Court Justices, in 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education. Chief Justice Hugo Black and company, who was also a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, fooled the spiritless American people, and specially the apostate Christian Church, and was unchallenged, and successful in erecting a fictional wall of separation between Church and State, thus imposing Secular Humanism upon the fifty states of the Union, and contrary to what the founding fathers envisioned.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution was drafted, to prohibit the establishment of any particular Christian Denomination from becoming the official national religion of the US, the Founding Fathers never meant to separate the government from the holy, and perfect will of God.

You thought I am altogether like you, but you must realize that you just proved my point, that most Americans are ignorant, and ungodly money loving idiots.

Henry, Henry, Henry, your rant is a bit over the top, but I will let it speak for it's self since I do believe in freedom of speech. However, you made my final point for me - people don't respect each other anymore. I pity you since you obviously don't feel the love of God enough to let others live their lives and find the love of God themselves. Benjamin Franklin stated: "Beer is proof God loves us." I think you might need to imbibe on some of God's gift and chill out a bit or you might have an aneurysm.

Does it hurt being that willfully ignorant? I mean, when reality knocks... how hard do you have to jam your fingers in your ears? Do they have to touch each other across the vast empty spaces of your brain?

You can follow the recent trend of revisionist history to rewrite the founding fathers thoughts. You heard it from Glenn Beck and David Barton, so it must be true. Doesn't matter their entire case it built on lies.

People like you... are why the separation is a good idea. A walking, talking, exemplification of everything that is wrong with the religious right.

You biased filthy piece of crap

Roulette

You speak like perversion is your middle name. You have been defeated, and proven wrong, but you just come back for more. You could very well be a shameless masochist deriving your pleasure from being humiliated, or you could be plain dumb, not knowing when to shut up.

In either case, there is the irrefutable fact that America in the last sixty-two years has regressed systematically to a worst level of debaucheries that were performed in ancient Rome. Such as Separation of Church and State, legalized in 1947. --- Church Incorporation under the IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Code, gagging and removing from the political arena thousands of churches across America, legalized in 1954. ---- The removal of the Bible and prayer recitation from public education, dumbing down millions of American, legalized in 1963. --- Premeditated Murder on Demand or Abortion of demand, or the killing millions of human beings. Each year in the U.S. the abortion industry brings in approximately 831 million dollars through their abortion services alone, plus 337 million dollars from Planned Parenthood, moving the dollar amount well past the 1 billion dollars mark, legalized in 1973 --- Then came the epitome of sexual perversions, when in 1998, U.S. President William J. Clinton signed executive order 13087, which was nothing more than the glorification, and affirmation of homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender into public education, and into America’s workforce. Followed by the legalization of euthanasia, and same sex marriage

Well, two different sides of a coin I suppose. I see every one of those things as an improvement. I support kicking the church out of the political arena. And removing state sanctioned prayer is good too. I'm pro-choice, because a small collection of cells is nothing more than potential, and doesn't get to impose will on the mother. And you know what? I support gays and their rights, up to, and including the right to get fucking married.

Comparing any of the above to ancient Rome confirms a severe level of ignorance about history. That seems to confirm my willfully ignorant point very well, thankyouverymuch.

However, allow me to return to your point. Regardless of your belief that the court sanctioned the separation of church, the fact of the matter is that it's pretty clear in the Constitution that government should stay out of the religious buisness. Repeating the same points again, doesn't suddenly change that. Read Jefferson and Madison's point of view. Read Washington's comments on the role of religion in government. Or Franklin. Or, you know what... read the court cases that you're referencing. They explain how they read their verdicts very carefully. All based entirely on the Constitution.

I'm sorry your stupid. Also sorry that you're a close minded, bigoted, anal sore. Either way... buh bye. I'm done with you. Cry some where else from now on.

The extent of your perversion has no bound by preventing me from posting

If people would stand up to homosexuals they would run back to the closets they came from, and where they most certainly belong.

Yar, someone should stand up to them thar colored folks too! 'Fore ya know it, they'll be runnin' the country! Heavens ta Betsy! ;)

Henry, perhaps you should put a sock in it. You have went very far off topic. I am a very tolerant person until someone starts vomiting bigoted misogynistic bile such as yours. I've let you have your say. Only I and the administrator (who respects my decisions) could prevent you from commenting on MY post. Roulette does not control my posts. He might be blunt, but he is a fellow poster here and as such I respect his right to contribute. Again, thanks for making my point that it is a lack of respect for other people's opinion that makes the whole First Amendment necessary and an exercise in futility all at once. Grow up - my blog, my post, show some respect please.

Respect is earned not given. You want respect then you must give respect by allowing free speech to run its course, regardless of who may be offended. It is apparent that you and your so-called friend are in cahoots working together in order to stifle the truth, and since you people live in your own little world of lies and perversions, you simply cannot stand the truth, that’s why you keep rejecting my comments.

Henry you are undeserving of respect. Don't come in my "house", take a crap on the dining room table and expect applause. I did not slight you until you figuratively took a dump on my post. You are a rude, illogical, humorless and in serious need of psychological and spiritual counseling.

Osama Bin Henry please stand up...

Wait... is he claiming that some of his posts have been deleted or blocked? Not me. I mean, I could, just by adding his to the spam filter. Accent on 'could'. I won't and I didn't. I don't really object to bigots exposing their view points to the harsh glare of reality. Makes it easier to tell the people you can dismiss later down the line.

But, in my continuing efforts to educate those that refuse all attempts at education... Henry, you little anal wart... the first amendment has fuck all to do with this blog. As a privately supported blog, all rights to posts are at the whim of the owner. In this case, the collective group of authors here in general and the admin in particular. You have no free speech protection or any expectation of such. If the admin deleted everything you wrote, you have no recourse but to accept it and move on.

Further, I don't want any respect from you. And I don't see any circumstance in which I could respect someone with such a negative and detrimental view of society. It would be similar to respecting naval lint, or establishing a rapport with a mosquito.

But none of that is why I reject your comments. I do that because they're factually wrong. Beyond that, they don't even remotely touch the topic brought up in Odessa's post, which you've spent your entire tenure here thread shitting on. Which brings me to a good point...

Odessa, I'm really sorry I allowed this trolling little fuck nugget to pull this thread so far off.

Mia culpa.

You God dammed idiot, what’s the point of having a Public Forum if you sensor whatever is in disagreement with you filthy perversions? Why don’t make it clear that “only perverts are allowed” Then you could all wallow in your filthy depravities undisturbed.

Lol, looks like you fit right in! Welcome!

Henry, I have no issue with disagreement, none what so ever, it is the rude manner of the disagreement with which I have issue. I enjoy discussion of divergent ideas in the spirit of the founding fathers, but I believe even they would have issue with your rude sanctimonious assertions. Furthermore, you pass yourself off as a man of faith and then use the Lord's name in vain. Shall we add hypocrite to the list of personality flaws?

P.S. No one, and NO ONE has been censored YET. Up to this point, I reserve deleting and editing for self-serving spammers looking for free ad space and removing personal data to spare innocent collateral damage.

Henry keeps saying the words pervert and depraved... To paraphrase The Princess Bride, "I do not think those words mean what you think they do."

Also, I do believe the lad needs to get his eyes checked. I'm still seeing all of his posts, so I can only conclude that he's either got bad eyesight, or is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Now I feel kinda badly... It's not nice to laugh at people with mental handicaps. :(

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!

It's not that he's being censored (because he's not). It's that he's being CHALLENGED. His words aren't accepted as divinely inspired gospel, and we're not flocking to his bullshit likes it's an oasis in the middle of the fucking desert.

Depravity and perversion are concepts drawn from a violation of morality. Quite frankly, being considered depraved by him would mean I'm just violating the morality of a hypocritical bigot. I'll check that box every day of the week.

Talk is cheap. Show me in the US Constitution or in a letter or in any other document where specifically says there is a wall of separation between Church and State. You will not find any, because there isn’t any.

Thomas Jefferson was the author of that phrase in a LETTER in 1802 regarding his interpretation of the 1st amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists

Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Your Internet [Kung] Fu is weak.

You can lead him, but he won't drink.

The following is a copy of the letter addressed to president Thomas Jefferson, from the Danbury Baptists Association

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the
chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that
religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.

It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over.

May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson



On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter he received from the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote the following.

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson



It is obvious that the Danbury Baptists were appealing to God’s appointee, President Thomas Jefferson to preside against government legislated religion, which would greatly oppress the Kingdom of Christ, or the Church. In order to grasp the full scope of the metaphor of "Separation of Church and State" used by Jefferson, we need understand some basic historical background in order to understand also the fears shared by the members of the Danbury Baptists Association.

Two centuries earlier their forefathers, members of the Baptist Denomination sailed to America escaping religious persecution from the Monarchial Anglican Church of England, which was founded by king Henry VIII after he requested the Pope in Rome for a divorce, so he could marry his mistress. The Pope refused, and Henry in defiance married his mistress anyway, and had his wife executed, then he gave the Pope his middle finger, and removed England out from under Rome’s control, and declared himself the reigning head of State, also the new head of the Church of England.

In response to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson assured them that the legislature or Congress should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State that protects the Kingdom of Christ, or the Church from Government interference.

The beginning of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” It does not say the government will prohibit public religious expression, in Local, State, and Federal buildings, but it says that Congress is prohibited from establishing one Christian denomination over another as the official religion of the United States of America. And the government on the other hand, cannot prohibit its citizens the free exercise of expression of religion.

Bear in mind, the First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in Dec.15, 1791 and, the Danbury Baptists Association drafted the letter to President Jefferson ten years later, on October 7, 1801. However, the metaphor of "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Declaration of Independence, or the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. And it does not create a wall of separation between church and State for the purpose of confining God to houses of worship only.

The Founders envisioned a nation devoid of government-established religion, a nation whose citizens would have freedom of religious expression, and freedom of worship as stated by their many quotes on the subject. They also warned that the U.S. Constitution would not be able to sustain our liberties if the American people abandon virtue and religion.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"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." James Madison.

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals: therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris.

"True religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington

"Moral habits ... cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits ... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." Daniel Webster.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington.

"The cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness, inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric." Daniel Webster.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams.

Let me try a different approach.

Assume you're correct for a minute. I don't think so, because I think it's implicit in the first amendment (the Supreme Court agrees with me) but let go hypothetical for a minute.

Is delineating a demarcation between church and state a good thing or a bad thing? History speaks clearly, it's a very very good thing. Personally, I think it's only of the top 2 or 3 things I love about this country.

I suppose I can see why you don't like it. Bigots are always pissed off when they can't condemn people for being different. Doesn't matter if it's skin tone, religious beliefs, place of birth or favorite color.

There are plenty of theocracies in the world. Take a long hard look at them. The come back and try to explain to me about how bad my country is because we have the audacity to make sure that church and state are separate.

And if you really want to drive it home, take a look at Islam. One of the worlds fastest growing religions. In countries like France, it's on it's way to becoming a majority religion in our lifetimes. It's growing here too. Of course, the fastest growing religion in these United States is actually 'None'. While we're off in imaginary land... consider the implications.

So I say again, fuck off, douche nozzle.

Thanks for being more civil and for taking time from your Valentine's Day to work on this. Please consider that "an establishment of religion" can genuinely also be taken to mean "a religious establishment", i.e. a place of worship. Also, it appears the purpose of their letter is for clarification and also to reconcile differences between the state and federal level. State vs. Federal law is a whole different line of political debate that 200+ years hasn't gotten worked out.

Simply because we cannot have this dialog without keeping a working scope-of-discussion in mind, remember that the topic of this blog article is in regards to a shopping mall, not a government building, a church building, or even The Church.

People can quite easily practice what they preach by showing it thru their actions. One might even consider it irreverent when people make a gross spectacle of something as private as their relationship with God.

All we are commanded to "share" is the Good News. If someone wants to learn more and reaches back out to God, it is that very act of reaching back and accepting Him which sanctifies them -- not any worldly deeds. Beating people over the head, tricking them, or trying to make them convert at sword-point defeats the whole purpose of evangelizing.

Furthermore, that method of "evangelization" only galvanizes and alienates. While it might encourage those who are already followers, that's not evangelizing, it's preaching to the choir.

If worship is between God and the worshiper(s), then the situation from this mall is irrelevant. From what we have seen, Snatchko was not worshiping (which is the protected right), he was evidently attempting to evangelize (after some fashion) with someone who was not reaching back.

No matter how good their intentions, one person's rights do not entitle them to have power over another, it's as simple as that. How would you feel if it was not a Christian but a pagan or atheist that was attempting to force their on others?

I'm glad the tone of this debate has become more civil. The whole purpose of my original post was to provoke thought about freedom of speech (with a side order of freedom of religion) vs. individual property rights. A mall might not be "private", per se, but it is in no way publicly owned. However, Lara brings an interesting thought to mind and here is an example:

Say you, as a good Christian (even if you are not, please make believe), are browsing in a shopping mall. Unless you are Amish and make it all yourself, most people occasionally need a pair of sneakers or a wedding gift. Someone approaches you and asks if you would like to talk about the Creator. You agree and quickly you discover that they are talking about Allah, what do you do? What should store staff do on your behalf if you are too timid to end the conversation?

Also, I know many people who are rude to people proselytizing on the street and do not want the intrusion of another Christian denomination into their lives. Whose right wins? The right to speak or the right to not listen?

I know that Henry has made the point that the founding fathers were Christian, that is not in dispute. However, if the founding fathers were aware of the other religions that make up the religious quilt of current day US how would they have phrased things? I think they would have been more careful with their wording, making sure to not exclude even atheists and pagans from consideration.

Assumption that non-Christian are the down fall of our society is short sighted. Many supposedly spiritual leaders are morally bankrupt themselves, so how can they set a good example. Speaking from my own experiences, I have a self-proclaimed very religious (Baptist) woman who has not paid me money that is rightfully mine. By all accounts, she has stolen from me. Then I have met pagans and atheists that are more charitable and caring than most Christians I know. From my experience, a person's professed faith has little to do with the quality of their heart and soul. Besides, who is more Christ-like, a person who is good without fearing God or a person whose sole reason for being good is fear of God?

test

Yes, you can still post. Despite all your whining about censorship, nothing you've posted here has been deleted or modified.

You bunch of filthy dogs, you are afraid of the truth because you are from below, from the pit of hell.

Where is the spam you are talking about?

Cannot post comment, please correct these errors:
Illegal content found (spam?)
[Back to comment editing]

It has nothing to do with winning an argument, but it has all to do with the facts. What is a fact? A fact is knowledge based on a real occurrence. I have already given you the facts, and I am referring to my first and last posts. The things that I have said on my last post are corroborated facts, easily verified by visiting the Library of Congress. And the things that I have said on my first post, are corroborated facts easily verified by reading your own responses.

Your problem stems from your colossal egotism, and disdainful conduct, preventing you from seeing the facts as they really are. Some preference or inclination is causing you to turn away from what is right, and proper. Therefore you are suffering from an acute case of prejudiced bias, inhibiting your impartial judgment.

And your stupidity emanates from your intense biased opposition to the facts, and your responses can be equated to someone eating an orange, and swearing it is an apple, or to someone eating a peach, and swearing it is a burger. You need to do an about face or a 180 degree turn, and you must examine yourself, and see that what you are holding on your right hand is nothing but a lie.

That is you falling afoul of the spam filter. It's a long long LONG list of words you're not allowed to say. The vast majority of which are things like URLs for Viagra and bisexual teens. However, it's a community managed list, with several hundred contributors. Some of them... suck at it. I'm constantly having to go in and remove crappy entries like 'ass' or 'fuck'. Frankly, I don't mind those words and filtering them blocks things like mass and crass. And fuckhead. As is... Henry is a fuckhead.

Ask Odessa. Every 3rd comment Odessa posts has something wrong with it that I have to figure out and remove from the spam filter.

Oh... and go fuck yourself.

Henry, are you always so paranoid?

Please take a deep breath and count to ten before continuing to read. Yes, I have a knack for running afoul of the spam filter and going word by word until I find the offender. Please bear with us because we deal in a world where SoBs are selling crap that no one here wants and it interferes with our desire to express ourselves. That being said -

I have read your comments, the substantive ones and the ones accusing (I presume me) of blocking you. I am trying to not take your rude comments personally.

Thank you for the letters and quotes, I found them interesting and enlightening.

If your last response is directed toward me, let me reply. Those letters may be facts, but they were written over 200 yrs ago. I ponder what the founding fathers would have done differently if they had gotten a peek into the future. You may think I have not replied to you, but you have never truly addressed the original purpose of my post. Your feeling on the separation of church and state issue is clear, but how do you feel about the freedom of speech portion? What about activities on personal property? You have twisted my original post nearly to the breaking point.

In regard to some of the insults: I'll admit that "colossal egotism" fits a bit. "Disdainful conduct"? Is that because I am a woman and all women must agree with you? "Right and proper", I haven't heard that since Sunday School. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich said: "Well-behaved women seldom make history." I may not make history, but I sure as hell can leave my mark. And the stupid part? Nah, I know my IQ, that one is not accurate in the least.

"You are suffering from an acute case of prejudiced bias, inhibiting your impartial judgment." Hmm, that is the first time in my life I have ever been called prejudiced (OK, maybe not the first, but that asshole didn't even say hello first). I am, in fact, very open minded. I always like pondering the possibilities. I am a scientist, I thrive in an objective environment weighing the options. My original post posed more questions than gave opinion.

As far as the religion portion of the First Amendment goes, I get it. For me, its all good as long as the government (or anyone else) is not pointing toward any particular church and compelling me to go. I agree that in some areas, things have gone to one extreme regarding keeping God out of everything.

I am not going to get this further off track. I will perhaps post something else more along those lines when I don't have a headache. However, I offer you an opportunity - See that little envelope thingy? Click it and send me a post on separation of church and state. I challenge you to put your heart and soul out there just to have it ignored and twisted off course. And if you do, please try to keep it rational and organized. I have to rewrite enough stuff at work for people who have no clue about organization.

Interesting read from polar sides. I respect passion and find that both sides have merit. As a cradle Catholic in America today, there is nothing harder than standing up in a crowd to attest to my beliefs because of all the secularism. I give kudos to evangelists who try to reach beyond people's comfort zone to tell the truth or spread the Good News and make people THINK, if not believe, especially in capitalist America. And I also respect very much our founding fathers' humility in recognizing human fallibility and not instilling any church or known religion in the hands of government. For faith & religion are more powerful than any thing or entity in this universe, and to allow faith & religion to be combined with government would be none other than "absolute power corrupts absolutely".