The separation of church and state as defined by liberals is completely false.....
Point in fact....congress begins its session with a prayer.
Military bases, and ships at sea, have a chapel to go and
yes......PRAY.....I will say it again....PRAY......
Our founding fathers never wanted the government to pass laws restricting a particular religion, or forcing that religion over other religions......but the ACLU has gone too far.....and so have atheist and degenerates.....who want to wipe ONLY CERTAIN RELIGIONS OUT.
2006-10-31 16:31:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rick D 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
Amendment 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.
Most Democrats don't feel Sharpton represents us either.
Separation of church and state is a fundamental key to protecting BOTH the church and the state.
God is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, for a reason. Separating the two protects both.
2006-10-31 16:45:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Russ C 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Sharpton is a user. I put him in the same ring as Jessy Jackson. They are making a ridiculous amount of $$ while holding the black population down by convincing everyone that they are victims. They have to do that, or they are out of a job.
AND
One cannot be truly Christian and be totally 'left' at the same time.
I don't find him the least bit funny.
Thanks for article.
2006-10-31 16:43:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by howdigethere 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Hate to....ahem....be a nit-picker, but you apparently don't know what you are talking about. I read the article, and nothing in it is advocating that church and state no longer be separated. Sharpton merely discusses issues he considers important. Not sure why you feel threatened by that....must be your general insecurity about how America is going to kick your crappy party out of power on election day.....
2006-10-31 16:31:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by lamoviemaven 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Sharpton has been called a lot of things. Honest isn't 1 of them.
I don't refer to him as reverand. He was "ordained" at the age of 8.
2006-10-31 16:28:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I see no contradiction in his statements.
Using religious organizations to fight against social injustices is completely different than using religious organizations to alter or influence legislation.
Would you like an example? Bush Jr's Faith-based Initiative Programs give aid and funds to poverty stricken countries all over world. IE, recently met someone that actually works with one in DARFUR. BUT HERE IS THE KICKER, because this humanitarian aid is now under the Homeland Security Faith Based Section, they are putting stipulations on the aid. For example, they are not allowed to hand out condoms or to teach anything other than abstinence.
Where is your outrage for this?
2006-10-31 16:33:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Al Sharpton: two words - Tawana Brawley.
2006-10-31 17:25:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
violate the separation of church and state? from that article i didn't get the view that sharpton was disobeying it.
maybe you should read about what jefferson and madison, the father of our constitution, have said about the establishment clause.
2006-10-31 16:35:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
ahem....Bush's faith based initiatives already violate the seperation of church and state....making our church leaders employees of the government. Sharpton is a goddamn weasel.
2006-10-31 16:29:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by big-brother 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well, the Rev. Sharpton IS pretty non-religious, for a preacher, so...
2006-10-31 16:51:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
2⤋