This is an interesting site.

<link>

Same tired old spam preacher. The same 50 states also put in provisions for freedom of (and if necessary from) religion to keep theocrats like you from establishing the theocracy you have wet dreams about

Interesting in what way? In that a lady with no credentials of any kind can spout off as if she's an expert and people like you believe her and support her?

"She has written extensively both articles and poetry. She has been published in the Presbyterian Guardian, The Banner, The Christian Home and School, Acts & Facts IMPACT articles (The Institute for Creation Research-ICR) Survival in the Twentieth Century (an international magazine out of Japan) and the world wide Christian Observer. "

That's here credentials....I expect more from someone who's supposed to be some kind of authority on a topic, sorry.

Or interesting in she's good at quote mining?

onio-:

Same tired old spam preacher. The same 50 states also put in provisions for freedom of (and if necessary from) religion to keep theocrats like you from establishing the theocracy you have wet dreams about

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a theocracy, just freedom for everyone, not just your ilk.

Uncle_Spike:

Interesting in what way? In that a lady with no credentials of any kind can spout off as if she's an expert and people like you believe her and support her?

"She has written extensively both articles and poetry. She has been published in the Presbyterian Guardian, The Banner, The Christian Home and School, Acts & Facts IMPACT articles (The Institute for Creation Research-ICR) Survival in the Twentieth Century (an international magazine out of Japan) and the world wide Christian Observer. "

That's here credentials....I expect more from someone who's supposed to be some kind of authority on a topic, sorry.

Or interesting in she's good at quote mining?

If you can't attack the message then attack the messenger, I got you.

Nanotech:

onio-:

Same tired old spam preacher. The same 50 states also put in provisions for freedom of (and if necessary from) religion to keep theocrats like you from establishing the theocracy you have wet dreams about

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a theocracy, just freedom for everyone, not just your ilk.

Then why do you constantly try to make this country a Christian nation? Is it so that you can clain that you are more of an American than those of us who aren't? You are not interested in freedom for anyone but those who agree with you and your theocratic ways preacher

onio-:

Nanotech:

onio-:

Same tired old spam preacher. The same 50 states also put in provisions for freedom of (and if necessary from) religion to keep theocrats like you from establishing the theocracy you have wet dreams about

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a theocracy, just freedom for everyone, not just your ilk.

Then why do you constantly try to make this country a Christian nation? Is it so that you can clain that you are more of an American than those of us who aren't? You are not interested in freedom for anyone but those who agree with you and your theocratic ways preacher

"You are not interested in freedom for anyone but those who agree with you and your theocratic ways preacher"

Now all you have to do is prove your lie. Have a nice evening.

I see some say God. some say Creator, some say Supreme Ruler of the Universe, one (MA) even says Supreme Legislature of the Universe, a Author of Existance...

32 of them have 'grateful to (Almighty) God'... which seems to be some sort of template for state constitutions.

I'm sorry. it doesn't say 'the Christian God' or 'Jesus Christ'.

and my state:

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

and

Oregon 1859, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

along with two of the earliest ones.

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI. III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

and a whole lot of them talk about civil political and religious liberties.

Yes, some state constitutions were written with a greater religious slant than others. Many different people over a great deal of time wrote them. They still talk about civil, political and religious liberties.

I do find it kinda interesting that Jesus Christ wasn't invoked. just the standard old fashioned 'Creator' thingy, even on some very late ones, which would have made the wording quite old fashioned and quaint when it was written.

Just curious, which of these blurbs do you think supports the claim that religion and state should mix?

History is proof enough. It's precisely why our founders separated religion and state. They were very familiar with history.

Once again you ignore uncomfortable questions for you Nano. The message has been thoroughly refuted many times already, and since you posted the site as something of interest I asked you what was so interesting that made it valuable or interesting?

Yes, I also questioned the expertise of the person responsible for the site since they have none in the field..so why should she be viewed as a reputable resource for anything?

She states "America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions"

Thomas Jefferson himself shows that to be incorrect in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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 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." Which was quoted in both the decision for the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States and the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education.

We can see further evidence of Jefferson's view on the matter in the text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which he authored, which again disagrees with both you and the author of the site...but hey, guess actually looking at facts would get in the way of the quote mining and would be attacking the messanger or some other such nonsense.

djindra:

History is proof enough. It's precisely why our founders separated religion and state. They were very familiar with history.

Show me that "Separation of Church and State" thing in one of the three founding documents? You can't because it is not there.

Uncle_Spike:

Once again you ignore uncomfortable questions for you Nano. The message has been thoroughly refuted many times already, and since you posted the site as something of interest I asked you what was so interesting that made it valuable or interesting?

Yes, I also questioned the expertise of the person responsible for the site since they have none in the field..so why should she be viewed as a reputable resource for anything?

She states "America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions"

Thomas Jefferson himself shows that to be incorrect in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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 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." Which was quoted in both the decision for the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States and the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education.

We can see further evidence of Jefferson's view on the matter in the text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which he authored, which again disagrees with both you and the author of the site...but hey, guess actually looking at facts would get in the way of the quote mining and would be attacking the messanger or some other such nonsense.

A little context would be nice wouldn't it? Jefferson was answering a letter from the Danbury Baptist. They were concerned that the new national government would step on their already established "State Religion". Strange how that little fact keeps getting left out. The phrase was never used in law until Black's decision in 1947 to keep the Catholics out of the government. Since when has a letter been law? Never.

Yeah, I've heard that before. And I'm, sure you've heard the obvious response: Read the First Amendment.

djindra:

Just curious, which of these blurbs do you think supports the claim that religion and state should mix?

You see, there you go putting words in my mouth which I've never uttered. I never said that Church and State should mix. They are separate entities with different purposes.My fight is with those who would excude people from government service due to their religion.