Originally posted by ImAlreadyPsycho
#2 Separation of church and state should mean total separation. Not partial
How are you viewing the separation of church and state? I think I said it before, but I'll say it again in case I didn't.
When I was taking my government class in high-school, we spent about a month and a half on the constitution. We read every word, broke down every
point, memorized parts, and defined the terms as they would originally be interpreted when the Constitution was drafted and approved.
If you follow your history, the separation of church and state was to keep the STATE from controlling the CHURCH.
It had happened in England when their government told them that they could only go to the Church of England and practice it's doctrines.
That is where the term "Separatists" was coined. They were 'separating' themselves from England and it's established church.
In order to prevent this from happening in America, it was written and sealed in the Constitution that it would be unlawful for the government of the
United States of America to support one religion over another, forcing it's citizens to attend one and only one church. That is where you get your
freedom to believe whatever doctrine you wish. It was not, however, to keep the influence of the church out of the government.
I garuntee you that this is the way it was
originally intended to be interpreted.
Now through the course of events, we have allowed the Supreme Court to have their way with the Constitution and fall away from it's original meaning
and intent. They took it as far as to say that the CHURCH must be separated from the STATE. They twisted the intended interpetation to mean the exact
opposite of the original meaning. In its entirety, the separation of church and state was obviously to give people
religious freedom. The fact
that it was added to the Pledge or was put on our currency means only that the people who put it there were trying to represent their beliefs and
those of the Founding Fathers. It is not to force anyone in any way, shape, or form, to follow one specific religion.
(*Sorry this posting was so long. The Supreme Court has been over-stepping their boundaries for far too long and it is a HUGE issue with me. This
forum was never intended to be an argument of religion...I was merely trying to point out that the Supreme Court is WRONG not only in its
interpretation of the Constitution, but also in it's rulings! Thank you all for your input. It is appreciated!! There have been several very good
points brought up. Keep 'em coming!*)
Thoughts/speculations?