seperation of church and state?
obviously Bush forgot
2006-07-31 03:56:02 · 10 answers · asked by sexydp 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
He's forgotten so much that he makes Ronald Reagan look like an Encyclopedia Britannica crossbred with a Mainframe computer. There is no insulator between church and state, no buffer zone. And George interprets the Bible as he sees fit. The money-changers ARE the temple. The rich will inherit the Earth and never again will they or their children pay taxes on it when they do. Jesus said when they turn the other cheek, slap it, too. Or just anyone's cheek, as long as they belong to that other church. It doesn't even have to be the right cheek, or on the right continent. Starve the poor and feed the rich. In Greed we trust. Everyone else pays cash.
George forgets a lot of things, especially when they get in the way of his concept of a perfect world. Things like democracy. And real freedom. And real liberty. George has redefined all these things.
If you read the Declaration of Independence, particularly the Preamble, each and every reason we started this Country is either in grave jeopardy or it has already come to pass.
And the Constitution... what a blasphemy, what King George has done to it.
It says when the government no longer works for the people and instead, the people are working for the government, it is our PATRIOTIC DUTY to tear it all down and start all over again.
No wonder Bush is dismantling the US Constitution.
Every graveyard in this Country is full of soldiers who died defending those two noble pieces of paper. And Bush has peed in every one of their faces. And in ours. And our children's and our children's children.
History will not be kind to you, George. And I have a feeling God isn't particularly happy with what you've done in His name, either. There will be a huge separation of church and state in the Next Life. And I would not like to be you.
2006-07-31 04:39:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No one has forgotten it, because there is no separation of church and state and never has been one. The Constitution only prohibits the Congress from passing legislation for the founding of a church, a provision included with the Church of England in mind; since there is no such national church here, the "separation" is still intact.
Really, though, the liberals are displaying their hypocrisy with this issue. They claim to be opposed to religious involvement in government, but they have no problem with using the third branch of government, the court system, to regulate religious activity. This constitutes, in itself, a greater danger to the so-called "separation of church and state" than anything President Bush or Congress can do--a bunch of unelected, unaccountable judges telling citizens where and when they can exercise or express their religious beliefs; this is what the liberals are trying to do to us. And they won't stop with Christians; it's only a matter of time before they start attacking other religions in the same way.
The liberals are the ones trying to stop the free exercise of religion. And it won't stop until someone takes a stand for the Constitutional rights of the people.
2006-07-31 11:26:21 · answer #2 · answered by nacmanpriscasellers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the whole government is forgetting things. For example that they are a government by the people, and for the people, that they work for us. However, the democrats and republicans are so buys fighting eachother, and refusing to take any of eachothers ideas because they're "republican" or because they're "democrate", they can't look out for the better good of the country, and for the peoples. And how everyone in the government was born into a very rich political family. What the government needs look at, is now how rich and how high in status you are to get into to it. But how smart you are and what can you do for the better good of your country. What we need is a leader, who is not so republican and not so democratic, who stands in the middle, can look at both sides without bias, and make decisions that benefit the whole country, and takes care of the people and the country, someone who realizes that the goverment is by the people for the people, not by only rich, political families, and for themselves. Because they are so rich, things like the price of gas, doesn't affect the directly, because they are so rich it doesn't matter because they can afford it no matter what, and minimum wage doesn't matter to them, because they'll never have to work a minimum wage job and try to live off of it. I think this country because of the separation of these two groups, is on a slow steady decline heading for either an eventual civil war if we don't come together, or a depression if gas and everything else keeps going up, but wages continue to stay the same as it is now. Well not that I'm done on my rant, lol. I'll let you go, and take care!
2006-07-31 11:06:44 · answer #3 · answered by ------ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, when the principals this country was founded on, becomes obsolete to an administration, we are in big trouble. And we are. The basic principals America was founded on are "a limited executive branch, transparent govt, free press, cautious involvement in foreign affairs". All absent in Bushworld.
As far as separation of church & state, a leader should never govern according to his religious philosophies or beliefs. They are not everyones beliefs. By taking his oath as president, he swore to uphold the Constitution. Instead, he has done everything possible, to remove the civil liberties and freedom that others have fought to protect.
I think our democracy is at risk of crashing--soon. When a presidency can be bought (or stolen), when a President no longer upholds the Constitution, when Congress no longer bows to the will of the people, when citizens no longer have a say in how their tax money is spent, there is no democracy. Scarey, isn't it?
2006-07-31 11:34:47 · answer #4 · answered by Nancy L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of popular belief these exact words are not found within the Constitution, however, the Establishment Clause states that "Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." what this means is that the President has every right to freely believe and express whatever he wants as long as he does not force others to do so
2006-07-31 12:27:33 · answer #5 · answered by Bob M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously you forgot to read the Constitution. It does not say anything about separation of church and state. It says that the state cannot force you to believe in or follow one particular religion. It does not say that our leaders cannot be religious or have religious convictions.
The phrase "separation of church and state" came from private letters written by Thomas Jefferson a decade after the Constitution was written.
Try educating yourself before you open your mouth next time.
2006-07-31 11:34:10 · answer #6 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you remember the pledge of allegiance?
One nation under God!
Why are all the religious symbols on the federal buildings?
It's only seperate in that the church doesn't run the government!
2006-07-31 18:42:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Point out exactly what you mean...do refer to the 1st amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Bush has CREATED a religion, or is FAVORING one over the rest?
In God We Trust...
2006-07-31 11:07:15 · answer #8 · answered by R J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Libertarian Party didn't forget.
2006-07-31 11:07:04 · answer #9 · answered by Dennis Fargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why cant we all just get along
2006-07-31 11:06:13 · answer #10 · answered by hanumistee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋