Seperation Of Church And State

I have stated on a number of occasions that there is no separation clause in the Constitution. The ACLU and those opposed to religion in government have skewed the words of the Constitution to fit in their leftist agenda. We are told by the left that they are the party of tolerance and that the right is the party that is intolerant of everyone who is different. This was demonstrated over at Lost Adam’s site when he quoted a remark by someone who was Hispanic, had six unruly children, and was getting $400 worth of prescriptions on the taxpayer through social welfare. I think Adam reads in to what the person was saying as I did not read anywhere that the person thought they were illegals though I am sure the implication was they very well could be. I’ll leave that to the reader to decide. The point is that the left is supposed to be the party of tolerance. Why is it then that they will not allow us to display the Ten Commandments in a court house (despite the fact they adorn the doors of the Supreme Court)? Why is it that any mention of God or Jesus or any other religious reference in a government venue will draw the ire of the groups who believe in this erroneous idea of separation?

Why is it that when a few terrorists make a claim that their Koran was desecrated the left jumps all over this like it was the kid with the ball in a game of smear the queer? I mean, here we have terrorists, who are not Americans, being held in US government buildings. We give them a Koran. We give them a prayer mat. We give them directions to Mecca (as was pointed out by Surfside) and we allow them to practice their religion. Now I believe that all people should be allowed to practice religion whether or not they are incarcerated. What I want to know is why the left and the ACLU are not up in arms about the government interfering with religion. Let us assume for a moment that there actually is a separation clause. Why then are these terrorists given a Koran by the government? No separation there. Why do we go out of our way to honor their religious practices but go out of our way to deny AMERICANS who are not terrorists their rights? Why is it that the terrorists can have signs pointing them to Mecca but Americans can not have the Ten Commandments pointing them in the right moral direction?

Now I don’t believe the terrorists over our service members for a minute. Unlike the left, I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys. But if these things took place were not the soldiers just acting upon the wishes of the left in America? They were making a separation between the church (mosque) and the federal government. After all, why should these terrorists be allowed more rights than the Americans they would just as soon kill in the name of their peaceful religion?

If Newsweek really wanted to have a great story how about they write about how our folks in uniform are upholding the erroneous idea of separation of church and state. How about they write that the military is pushing the left’s liberal agenda on the terrorists. Kind of makes you wonder, if the left’s agenda is not good enough for the bad guys, why is it so good for us?

In a related story:

The Supreme Court sided with a witch, a Satanist and a racial separatist Tuesday, upholding a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate the religious affiliations of inmates.

I guess it just goes to show that terrorists and criminals are allowed religious freedom and can have it sponsored by the government but the rest of us are only allowed to sit back while our freedoms erode.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “Seperation Of Church And State”

  1. Adam says:

    Tell me how quoting a racist (and yes he is a racist) is me demonstrating how the left believes they are tolerant and the right intolerant? Give me a break here.

  2. Big Dog says:

    That guy only pointed out observations. He said the family was Mexican, they had 6 unruly kids, spoke Spanish, and got $400 worth of medication on welfare. Now the whole picture might have been to paint it as an illegal but the fact is he never called them that.

    How do you know he is a racist unless you have met him? You and some of the others there called me a few choice names because I made a joke about Rosie and Ellen not getting mandates. All the sudden I was a gay basher and an intolerant lout. You all assumed that just like you are assuming it about this guy.

    Perhaps he was not happy that he was paying for medications for a baby factory. And the point was that you pointed it out and insinuated that the guy should have been more understanding of these poor folks. My point was that you were demonstrating that the left is tolerant and the right is not.

  3. Adam says:

    Bull. I was demonstrating that the guy was brainless for making generalizations about race and status as American citizens. How can you honestly defend him with a statement such as “that might be what he meant but he never said so…so that makes it okay”? Again though…how does that translate into anything to do with left and right? The only one here saying the left is tolerant and the right is not…is you. Sorry.

  4. Schatz says:

    Great point Big Dog. I never looked at some of your points in that light before but once again you are right on target. It seems that Christians seem to enjoy far less “tolerance” than any other religion practiced in our country, even those that are questionable at best. Of course, IMHO criminals in general are afforded more rights and protections than average citizens and even military personnel and those are the same people that refuse to follow the laws of our land to begin with. Kind of scary, no?

  5. Big Dog says:

    And why is he a racist because he was making a generalized statement about their citizenship. You are assuming they were. I am the only one saying it here but you guys have been baning this theme all along. I have been taken to task for making a joke about 2 gay women who happen to be way left.

    The fact is the left tries to portray itself as the tolerant group and that the right is a bunch of inflexible Jesus freaks who want their guns God and money left alone. You do not hear the folks from the right bloviating about this so called separation idea. It is the left. I am not defending the man. I was not there and do not know all the circumstances. I think that he has a right to be upset if his tax money is paying $400 for medications for this baby factory whether she is a citizen or not. He has a right to be especially upset if she is not. I know you will go on about helping those less fortunate. Well part of that is that people need to exercise some personal; responsibility like keeping their legs closed if they can not afford to take care of their children. We did not sleep with her why do we have to keep paying for her kids?

  6. Surfside says:

    Big Dog:
    You are so right. We are not only allowing these detainees to practice their religion, we are actually facilitating it. It seems if you’re in a “majority” group these days (white, Christian, male, etc.), your rights are deemed less important than those of a “minority” group. Let’s not allow Boy Scouts to be sponsored or to utilize any federal, state or locally operated facilities. But, give those Islamic boys their Muslim food and their book of prayers while in a federal facility. Sure, I can see the logic in that. . . not!

  7. Mike Elmore says:

    Check out this audio of a phone cal from micheal crook to an internet radio network
    http://www.nhbradio.com/Downloads/tabid/55/Default.aspx