It would seem that there must be some reason other than because I do not like them or I do not believe in what they are doing. The separation of Church and state has become something that our forefathers are probably spinning in their graves over as it is not at all what they intended it to be when written. But you are very right by saying if is because of evil we are killing and injuring our young people it has brought in a religious element that today's standards should not allow. I personally think that to divide by today's standards church from state we are saying 'Yes GOD you can help us when we want you to and watch us all the time to keep us from harm but ... we will not say thank you and we will not give you a place of honor in our country" Maybe he believes that since evil is the opposite of GOD it is alright.
2007-04-07 04:04:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by ruttschaw1 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) The Seperation of Church and State idea was mostly one so one Church (ie Baptists, Anglican, Luthuran.) and so the Federal government would not overthrough the "State Churches" that were in 9 of the states when it was signed. Some states wouldn't even let you vote unless you were from a certain church. So it does not mean religion and state. A Church and State.
2) Evil is a moral issue. Not a religous one. One can have morals without religion. Even many Agnostics believe Hitler was evil ?
2007-04-07 03:59:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by ALunaticFriend 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are another fanatic who has once again twisted the words of the constitution to mean something totally different than what it actually says. Take the time and read THE ENTIRE first ammendment.
It was not intended to remove God from the government, it was written to protect individuals from having any one faith forced upon them.
Evil exists in this world whether you are religious or not. Evil is a term that refers to a concept that happens to be used in the bible can exist separate from religion.
As long as you liberals keep mutilating the Constitution, it will be helpless to protect you and serve you in the way that it was intended and we all will suffer from that in the future.
2007-04-07 03:53:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Voice of Liberty 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
If a president uses fighting evil as a reason for war, he is not fighting for logical reasons, but personal reasons.
2007-04-07 03:47:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Virgo27 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Look around who want to rule the world with Oil as WMD with self lack of knowledge on who won the Liberation of Freedom for the good of mankind back in world war two in planet of apes?
Luke 9.25
Ever wonder Oil is God's Natural assets for the survival and advancement of living human kind in planet of apes?
Ever wonder who got themselves kick on the butts with living examples on the punishment and destrction of human errors by our creator out there in planet of apes.
Ever wonder how the guys and gals out there were at loss and blurr with what went wrong out there in planet of apes?
2007-04-07 04:25:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope, but you can use U.N. Resolutions for war, broken ones especially, and that's exactly what the president did!
PS. and ZH, I didn't know there was mass desertions and I work for the department of the Army, how did you dream that one up???
2007-04-07 03:47:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
There is no legal 'separation of church and state', It is unconstitutional.
Why did libs vote for this war if all they're going to do is b*tch about it?
2007-04-07 03:48:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Neil Budde Sucks Ass 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
If the evil threatens our national
security then yes. And Z H there are
no "Mass desertions".
2007-04-07 04:01:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by airsoftguy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
thats why there are mass desertions from the military. They didnt sign on to fight a Christian vs Islam war, or any of the other idealistic crap that the neocons give for this dalliance.
2007-04-07 03:48:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
He means evil like in Star Wars. He doesn't read so they stick to movies.
2007-04-07 03:47:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Malthusian 3
·
1⤊
3⤋