Is there a Special version of the Constitution that Libs read?

razor

So what you are saying is that religion should pay taxes like any business and the working masses.

dukalink6000

Then why do conservatives supoort this as well?

James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Walsh); "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.", and he declared "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

EasyRider66

Your smart, keep up the good work.

volleyballchick

In reading this, it means that the government can not legislate religion. In order to do so would violate the rights of the athiests. Which is what you listed spoke of. Legislating anything based on "religion" is putting the views of one religion above another belief. So THAT is what I speak of when I speak of the separation of church and state.

What is the right religious view? Catholics think birth control is a sin, whereas Protestants see it as something necessary for the times. You gonna legislate which view? Both are very "mainstream" religions. . .

The Supreme Court defines that constitution - the same Supreme Court that right now is mainly Conservative.

So stick all that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

Mark D

The only thing that is "special" about the way the libs "read" the Constitution, is that they "read" it with an underlying attitude of sophistry. And, of course, there is their underlying attitude that the Constitution was written by liberals who didn't want conservatives to have much if any political control, so every time judges "strike down" laws made by conservatives, the liberals will simply applaud and assume that it's what the Founding Fathers wanted. Last year on one website I told a group of liberals that they interpret the Constitution selfishly -- they think they can interpret it any way they want to suit their goals but they would fight tooth and nail to prevent conservatives from doing the same.

Roland D.

Anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation do respect an establishment of religion.

jxt299

Would you be OK with Islamic law getting shoved down your throat by Big Government? Islam is the fastest growing religion in America now, so it is only a matter of time until they have the numerical majority necessary to vote their religious laws in to law for all the rest of us to obey. Do you think then you might want separation of church and state? Or what if you moved to Utah, would you want the schools indoctrinating your kids that Jesus came to America after He died, and that He married several English wives? Please understand, separation of church and state PROTECTS RELIGION. Thank you.

Mr Ed

No it's the same one Bush said is a god d piece of paper.

Mark S

You are correct, GOD Bless the State!!!!

spongeworthy_us

Is there a Special version of the Constitution that Cons/Repugs read?

I have seen this so many times, Cons/Repugs talking about "separation of church and state" have any Cons/Repugs actually read the Constitution? Has any Cons/Repugs actually read the establishment clause and realized it is the duty of the goverment to supress the recognition of a religion IN A PUBLIC, TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED place, because to not suppress any one religion is tantamount to establishing that religion as the state religion?

That Jefferson's opinions are NOT in the constitution but were written in a letter, which most conservatives accept as not just good government but very good ideas as well? There IS a "wall of seperation between church and state", the first amendment:

Article I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Additional Details

One thing i would like to add...
All I am saying is it's the Goverments role NOT to remain neutral to religion, to not endorse and to supress religious activities IN PUBLIC, TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED places. Let no Religions if they have a member speak their will at graduiations, because since there are several hundred religions, if everyone is going to have their fair say, a two-hour graduation is now stretched out to 18 hours so every religion can be heard, this goes for prayer meetings in public buildings.

As for abortion it is absolutely a religion thing, because some whacko religions think an embryo, a ball of a few cells which cannot exist for even a minute outside the mother, is equal to the mother and that destroying an embryo is even more wrong than destroying the mother; most of the non-whacko religions do not agree.

Killing an embryo is no more killing a living thing than killing a cancer cell or removing an appendix or a spleen. yep, cancer cells have their own weird DNA, that's why they grow out of control. But, I didn't realize that the whacko religionists made a distinction between one DNA and another, that's a new one on me, more hair-splitting religionism. Put it this way: if it's not a religion thing, why do whacko religionist call an embryo innocent life but they have non problems killing the mother, if that's what it takes or putting people to death for crimes or sending our soldiers off to die in pointless wars? Seems to me like the mother, soldiers or even criminals are more human that a ball of cells dependent on the mother. WTF are you people thinking?

There is enough information out there and free or low cost birth control that abortion should be consitered an outdated practice,
and it might be were there not such things as rape and failure of birth control, which, by the way many whacko religions such as the ones that consider abortion murder have outlawed. So maybe if the whacko religions would permit their members and people outside their religion to use contraceptives and condoms, abortion would be less prevalent.

"much like using leeches and maggots to clean a would..", an interesting point since maggots are in fact being used to clean out necrotic and gangrenous wounds nowadays.

Most unwanted children should't be concieved in this day and age they say that each form of birth control is at least 98% effective so using more than one method should make the chance of conception less than .01%., but since the same whacko religions who have a problem with abortion also have a problem with the 98% effective contracption AND because women who are raped are not always practicing contraception, kind of blows your whacko theories, eh whacko?

Funny for someone who claims to be agnostic, you really are pushing hard for whacko religionists to have all these rights to influence the way our government works, eh whacko? And if you really are an agnostic as you claim to be, what is it about atheists that p!ss you off so much? Atheist believe in no religion, agnostics believe in no god, I don't see a lot of difference between the two, eh whacko?

To Gary, I didn't make myself clear: I'm not criticizing Atheists or Agnostics, I'm just pointing out that if you go up and look at what the questioner has put there, he starts out saying that all religions ought to be able to practice in public venues, then he says he's an agnostic, then he says "Atheists p!ss me off..." I'm not in favor of any particular religion and I don't deride atheists or agnostics - I just don't like religion mixed with my government, that's all.

suspendor

Apparently. They don't want Christianity, but Secular Humanism, an atheistic religion, is just fine by them. You can't be a liberal unless you subscribe to their sacrament of Abortion on Demand and preach the Gospel of 'Rob the Rich and Give to the Poor to attain total power over all'.