Thx ratilfar.

My contention is that the First Freedom was written to keep the Government out of Religion and not (necessarily) the other way around.

In l947, the United States Supreme Court put real teeth into that phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” . . .

Although some of these protections have been watered down over the years, the essential principles remain strong. They are, however, under relentless attack from those who ignore our history. . . .

This separation of church and state, though, hasn’t run absolutely smoothly, of course. There were literally riots in Philadelphia prior to the Civil War...

read more»

Thx ratilfar.

My contention is that the First Freedom was written to keep the Government out of Religion and not (necessarily) the other way around.

In l947, the United States Supreme Court put real teeth into that phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” . . .

Although some of these protections have been watered down over the years, the essential principles remain strong. They are, however, under relentless attack from those who ignore our history. . . .

This separation of church and state, though, hasn’t run absolutely smoothly, of course. There were literally riots in Philadelphia prior to the Civil War.

History tends to repeat itself as the memories of past lessons learned die with those that lived it. Even if handled carefully, the total separation of Church and State, will create a division of animosity leading straight to hatred and hate crimes. We will be going back to before the Civil War. I would be suspicious of those “clerics” that are spearheading this movement. The Bible says . . ‘thou shall not be Revered except unto Him’. Multiple ‘reverends’ are listed on the FFF site. What ARE their motives? Power? Money? . . . huummm . . .

So, I have tried to clarify as asked. Now, if you all go on the attack, well that proves my point.

Blessings to you all

Well the Constitution says under the Establishment Clause:

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

So I guess is cut both ways, my concern is that there are those who want the to impose on goverment and through it, a series of very narrow religious doctrines, thus creating a fuctional theocracy, I believe it is the Pat Roberson's of the world that want that. I am not for preventing anyone from worshiping (or not) as they see fit, but i do not want others religious views impose on me through the powers of goverment. I belive these pastors realise that in a world where there is no wall, they would be ...

Well the Constitution says under the Establishment Clause:

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

So I guess is cut both ways, my concern is that there are those who want the to impose on goverment and through it, a series of very narrow religious doctrines, thus creating a fuctional theocracy, I believe it is the Pat Roberson's of the world that want that. I am not for preventing anyone from worshiping (or not) as they see fit, but i do not want others religious views impose on me through the powers of goverment. I belive these pastors realise that in a world where there is no wall, they would be as persecuted by their religious beliefs as those who claim not to believe in anything, since it would not jive with official dorcrine. If anything this movement is not about hate, but about protecting the rights of everybody, believers and non-believers alike.

I see a disturbing trend to impose there narrow views on all of us, and clearly that is something that would go against the second part of the Clause, for when one religion becomes the official religion, then all other belief systems take second place at best or will be squashed at worst.

Evangelical religions, no matter their creed, by definition try to convert everyone. That is their free exercise. In the US they are permitted to make efforts to enact their beliefs into law. That is freedom of speech and assembly. What the government can not do is "establish" an official religion, ie favor one religion over another or discriminate against one over another.

I always get a kick out of those who say they don't want others' views imposed on them. Of course not, but that's what democracy is all about. The majority, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, gets to impose its views on the minority. One of those limits is the establishment clause. The establishment cl...

Evangelical religions, no matter their creed, by definition try to convert everyone. That is their free exercise. In the US they are permitted to make efforts to enact their beliefs into law. That is freedom of speech and assembly. What the government can not do is "establish" an official religion, ie favor one religion over another or discriminate against one over another.

I always get a kick out of those who say they don't want others' views imposed on them. Of course not, but that's what democracy is all about. The majority, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, gets to impose its views on the minority. One of those limits is the establishment clause. The establishment clause, however does not prevent religious people or groups from lobbying to get their views adopted.

In the end the government can not be a Christian government under the constitution. It can, however, enact laws that support a "Christian" viewpoint. The way to stop that is not through the litigating the establishment clause, but through exercising one's rights of free speech and assembly, also contained, not by chance, in the first amendment.