Wall of Eternal Seperation

I have a few articles by some fool for you to read...
Here.....................and Here

God, I love the Bill of Rights, especially when they are taken completely out-of-context by people with extremist agendas. He never claims anything to the contrary, either. These two articles are closely related, so I've decided to share my opinions on both.

Okay everyone, listen closely, I'm going to make two things very clear here...One, calling people Liberals doesnt make you right, you self-rightous, pompous idiot. See, I can label people too!
And Two, Liberals don't hate God, they hate the fact that some people want to force their religions into a democratic government where it is obvious it cannot exist, for the sake of all the people it represents.
"Now bear in mind, as recently as 1892 the Supreme Court had specifically cited the "mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." So their 180-degree change of course to require "separation of Church and State" 70 years later was truly a reversal of historic proportions — not to mention a legal proposition theretofore unheard of in all of American history."

Yes, Supreme court Justice Brewer wrote that in summary of a transportation case. He also wrote later, in his memoirs, that when he said that, all he meant was that a lot of americans were christians; Nothing more. That quote is just a reflection of culture from 100 years ago, not justification for the eradication of the wall protecting us from religion.
This one really gets me, and just shows how ignorant the writer is, and how little he actually knows about american law and just works off assumptions that suit his cause rather than doing a little research;
" Once they had successfully kicked God out of school, the Liberal secular humanists went after God's laws in the public square. Look at the Ten Commandments — a perfectly good set of morals and values that just so happen to have been the cornerstone of Western Civilization and jurisprudence for 2,000 years or so — yet for 40 years Liberals have fought religiously (oxymoron) to remove all reference to these God-ordained decrees from schools and courthouses across the land."
Let's examine this a bit, shall we? For starters, OUR american legal system is the only relavent one as far as this arguement is concerned. ALL judicial systems are based of King Hammurabi's original law codes, written almost 4000 years ago; NOT some christian doctorine. American law is an adaptation of British common law. What is common law? Well, back during Britain's reign as a superpower, the first law was that you could not disturb the "King's Peace". Judges were then sent across the country to rule on cases, using that concept, as well as precedent from their peers, to create new law. Common Law, or judicially created law, is the foundation of our modern system, and is still used today in many ways.

Did I mention the 10 commandments as a foundation for our modern law documents anywhere? No? Wierd...

And let's take a look at the 10 Commandments, shall we?

1. Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me Can anyone find this one in the Federal statutes for me? No, and in fact, it is contradictory to the first amendmen's protections against imposition of religion on anyone. Not a law, not a concept, not even close to anything resembling a cornerstone of religious jurisprudence.
2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images There are a few ways that this could be interpreted, none of them helpful to Tabor's cause. The first would be that you aren't allowed to make any kind of visual representation of God, such as is popular in the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, not a law...never has been, never will be. The second would be that you aren't allowed to worship false idols, as is a very common interpretation by leyman. Such is also a contradition of the First amendment, and therefore, stupid.
3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name Of The Lord In Vain Freedom of speach...any questions?
HMMMMM, 3 down. Not looking good for the commandments
4. Remember the Sabbath, Keep it Holy The Superbowl is played on sunday. People work on sunday. Stores are open on sunday. Even during the revolutionary war, you think they just stopped fighting when sunday rolled around? No.
5. Honor Thy Father And Mother Oh look, another suggestion that isnt actually a law. No state requires "Honor" to be shown, as that would be another free speach issue. Another one bites the dust.
6. Thou Shalt Not Kill OH MY GOD! We finally come across an actual law. Unfortunately, you shouldnt get too hyped up yet. This is a law in every nation in the entire world. Does that mean Iran and Iraq, stoutly Muslim nations, are based in the 10 Commandments? NO! The no killing law dates back to Hammurabi, when he enforced an eye-for-an-eye sanction against those who committed it. Sorry guy, the Mesopotamians got there first.
7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery This actually used to be a law, but isn't anymore. In other countries it is punishable by up to death, but here in america, we can have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want, and the government can't legislate against it unless it creates social harm, such has statutory rape.
8. Thou Shalt Not Steal See number six, cause it pertains here, too.
9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbors This one is actually kinda tricky. It seems like it means you can't lie to your neighbors, which we all know isnt illegal. If, however, it means you can't lie in court, then it IS a law. Unfortunately, it's a law shared by every other country in the world AGAIN. Sorry Tabor.
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Not only is this NOT a law, it's almost contradictory to our capitolist way of life.

So as you can see, only 3 of the Commandments are actually laws, and all of them are universally accepted. They were also all created LONG before the 10 commandments were claimed to have been written.
Simultaneously, along the way, a new generation of super-secular Scientists replaced the Biblical account of Divine Creation as a manifestation of God's handiwork with the logically absurd theory that we humans have evolved from apes (recently) and pond scum (ultimately). Today these pseudo-intellectual, self-styled "genius experts" even ridicule the perfectly valid concept of Intelligent Design, derisively calling it "junk science." No inquiring open minds here: nothing but vintage Darwin will do for these Liberal denizens of our academic ivory towers.
LOL. "Honey look, the pot is calling the kettle black" Not only does he immediately dismiss theories with scientific backing, he then defends a theory that has NONE, but claims people who pay attention to science aren't "open minded". WOW, idiocy and hippocracy apparently runs very deep here. Scientology IS a junk science, and it's called that because there is no scientifc proof to back it up, only theologically-supported ideas that claim things are too complicated for some idiots to understand, so someone smarter than you must have been in charge of making them. Guess what, from what i can tell, it sounds like the same thing applies to those people in relation to evolution and the Big Bang theory.
And in relation to government-funded chaplains for Military sermons he says "Imagine that — a Christian chaplain who might dare to tell people about God! It's simply scandalous." Nobody cares if u wanna go to a sermon, but we take DEEP offense when it is our governments money that is paying their salary.

Now, part two of our double-header, the seperation fo church and state. I'm not sure if i've already talked about his, so I'll just go over everything i have.
This is the most commonly used arguement against the seperation, and unfortunately for anyone educated enough to actually research it, the most flawed as well.
But the Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere. That phrase actually comes from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, who were concerned that Anglicanism might become the official (or Established) denominational preference of the new nation. Jefferson was trying to reassure the worried Baptists that no such "establishment" skullduggery was afoot.
The Dansbury Papers are an extension of Jeffersons thoughts on the first amendment, and are an excellent explanation of exactly what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it. Also, in the 1879 case of Reynolds V U.S., the SUPREME COURT ruled that Jeffersons views, as expressed in the Dansbury Papers, "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment". The Supreme court just said that everything Jefferson said in those papers should be seen as the actual definition of the first amendment regarding freedom from religion. In those papers, he states that there should be a wall between any religion and the state, because any government that, not only gives prefferencial treatment, but ANY kind of treatment to a religion is endorsing it regardless of their motives, and therefore is a threat to freedom. You cannot have a free nation when the government endorses ANY religion.

"President John Quincy Adams, the son of the great statesman from Massachusetts who did so much to inspire the Declaration of Independence, stated the truth succinctly on July 4, 1821: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."" Remind me again what this has to do with the constitution? Last time i checked, a personal statement made by the president didn't erase amendments. This coming from a man who cheated to get elected by conspiring with congress to screw Andrew Jackson; definately a role-model, someone we should look to when trying to decide moral and ethical issues.

Fifty years later, the Liberal icon Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court: "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion." (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952)

Dude, you're an idiot. Read that over again carefully this time, without bias, then tell me what it says. Cause as far as i can tell, this pertains to preferencial treatment of one religion over another by government, and only when taken COMPLETELY out of context does it even remotely help your cause. Unfortunately, someone smarter than you sees your little manipulations and has the balls to call you on it. The key phrase there is "The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects". This means that when different religions are competing, the government cannot become involved in supporting one or another(Or both), because that is unconstitutional. Only when you isolate specific sentences from the context by which they pertain does it sound like that allows the government to promote religion. But ideas arent interpreted by isolating singular sentences, you have to look at the entire context, and this clearly does not support your idiotic findings.

This blatant distortion of our nation's history is a slap in the face of American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this widespread anti-Christian disinformation campaign. The public schools should be teaching our children the truth, not just what they want kids to believe. Those of us who know the truth need to hold the Liberals accountable for their insidious lies.

AHHHHHH, and now we see his agenda. Gotta love those extreme religious zealots who want to impose their religion on innocent, impressionable children. I already wrote about his, so i'll just repeat that this kind of behavior is dispicable, and any adult who wants to force their beliefs on someone not yet old enough to make up their own minds should be ashamed. Your blatant lack of faith in your religion's ability to convert those NOT indoctrinated betrays your lack of faith towards your religion.

In closing, Here's A Thought... If you want to live in a Theocracy, move to Iran. Here in America, we don't impose our religions on others, especially those deemed legally incapable of making decisions and judgements for themselves. You wanna talk about religion being well established in american history? Lets look at the beginning then, shall we? Last time i checked, the pilgrims left England to be free from the same filth you are now trying to force onto everyone else. "Liberals" don't want religion to be eradicated, just that nobody be forced into believing in one. If you want prayer in school I'm cool with that, as long as the kids are also taught the prayers of every other religion in the world.That should take care of the peferencial treatment, and if your religion truely is the right one, than they will choose it WITHOUT your interference.Now where did I put those Tibettan buddhist mantra scrolls....