Conservatives against Separation of Church and State, what do you think of this:?

and?

too bad liberals hate the constitution and

shitt on it daily

OMG The hypocrisy!!

Damn damn damn! Now I cannot claim Reagan as my God anymore!

Hmmmmm...wait, wait, wait for it...YES I CAN!!

I damn well know that Reagan raised taxes numerous times yet I still deny that reality and insert the 21st Century Conservative history revisionism fantasy that says Reagan lowered taxes.

I just do the same here.

Ronald Reagan said "Let the Pope have an American Puppet President, let Jesus rule this land!!"

Whew!!! I was worried for a moment.

Conservatives are not against the separation. Liberals are.

The constitution says the government shall make no laws pertaining to religion. No laws. It;s the liberals who make all sorts of laws about religion: No religious symbols in public, no silent prayer allowed in school, etc...

If a conservative wanted to enforce a religion, then he would indeed be violating the clause, but then he is not really a conservative.

Conservatives want to be left alone, not harassed by liberals. Reagan was totally right.

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the conscience of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose " Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

I remain with Thomas Jefferson the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, on Separation of Church and State.

For Liberty!

definite, i do no longer trust the government annoying one faith interior the U. S.. by way of fact the assertion of separation of Church and State has no longer something to do with using faith to manage this us of a, yet extremely it protects the electorate of this us of a from a declared national or state faith. all the founding fathers of the U. S. have been religious and none have been atheist. interior the assertion you published, Adams is pointing out that no person faith replace into used in determining regulation interior the rustic. returned in his time, Islam replace into no longer what this is in the present day. It would desire to easily be an unusual occurring that lots of our regulations are based on the ten Commandments. you are able to desire to envision right here link approximately precisely what occurred with the "Treaty of Tripoli" in the previous claiming it some how skill that the U. S. replace into no longer according to Christian or religious ideals.

Good luck getting any self-absorbed conservative to view anything historical through anything but a dissonance-centric, reality filter.

It's more important for conservatives to reinforce a conservative revisionist fantasy narrative than to accept the harsh reality of inherent conservative policy failures when juxtaposed with reasonable liberty-centric liberal policies which are the most difficult policies to enact due to over-reactive regressive political opposition to anything that benefits society as a whole.

Separation of church and state means no laws which honor an institution of religion and no laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion. That's what the First Amendment says at least.

The last time I checked, I don't think anybody's forcing you to go to church. But you guys attack anybody in politics that is religious.

No Conservative is against separation of church and state.

No conservative that I know or have heard advocates for a state sponsored religion.

The problem is what you believe that separation is.

No church today dictates to our government.

Btw, Public schools are NOT the State and were never intended too be.

Still public schools do not dictate religion.

Also, many people appose gay marriage because they believe it is immoral, people of all faiths and no faith.

thomas jefferson said the First Amendment was designed to provide a wall of separation between church and state.

I agree with the separation of church and state. But, his claim is disputable due to the probability that he swore on a bible.

I'm all for that. Then we can start being objective about issues like gay marriage/civil unions without using religion as a weapon in debates.