Rovingpatrol's Blog

Separation of Church And State

Posted in politics by roving on January 16, 2009

While reading blogs against Christians, I keep reading the same phrase over and over. “The

separation OF church and state” Theses words are NOWHERE in the constitution. If  they are, will someone please point it out to me because I cant seem to find it.

What I see is, ‘CONGRESS shall make no law establishing religion, or to PREVENT the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

What they were trying to do was to prevent religious persecution and prevent the government from creating a national  religious establishment. They didn’t want a certain religion taking control of the country.

Jefferson did pass a bill which  was to prevent  the use of taxes to further religious education. In a letter to a Baptist Association he mention a wall of separation The wall had to do with setting the Baptists fears aside and more or less promising them the government wouldn’t intrude on their religion. The purpose of the letter had to do with the government not getting involved essentially.

Over the years judges have twisted the constitution and it finally lost all context of the original meaning. It was a judge who started the Phrase “Separation from church and state”. It is nowhere in the constitution. One judge is all it took to completely undo what the founders had in mind.

What we have now are atheists trying to shove their non beliefs down our throats. Trying to silence all religion (except for Muslim religion. go figure) The only freedom of expression they believe in is their own.

I find it hard to believe a few Christmas trees or a cross are that offending. If it is offensive, they really need to get a life. Seriously.

If I’m wrong, point out where it is I’m wrong at.


8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. mohammed allah said, on January 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    The Best mohammed T-shirt art is from Sweden. Watch and read the info at,
    And allah will help the muslims. HA HA HA HA

  2. Corey Mondello said, on January 17, 2009 at 2:06 am

    I find it very offensive whenever I see a cross anywhere. Why you may ask? Well, look into the history of what that very symbol has supported and what it still supports today.

    Lets just say, if you are offended by two men holding hands and kissing, that feeling you get, is the same I get when seeing a cross.

  3. Kay said, on January 17, 2009 at 10:13 am

    As an American, Corey, you are supposed to have the “right” to express your opinion due to the freedom of speech. That “right” does not give you the right to force the removal of the “offendsome” object.
    Furthermore, of course the cross is offensive to you. 1Cor. 1:18 says: For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God.
    But, in Gal. 3:13: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written “Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.” (cross)
    And Heb 12:2: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
    Whereby we can claim Rom 10:8-10 The word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: this is the word of faith which is being preached, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man believes unto (right-standing with God) righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

  4. roving said, on January 17, 2009 at 11:20 am


    I may not like to see two men walking down the street holding hands but I wouldn’t force them to stop. I would look mutter eeew, then move on.

  5. Doug Indeap said, on January 17, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment. As no one (with any modicum of understanding of the Constitution) has seriously suggested the words appeared in that document, why you would make so much of their absence is not apparent. Lots of other phrases descriptive of Constitutional principles also do not appear in so many words in the document (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty), yet few would argue those principles aren’t embodied in the Constitution.

    Assuring that the government itself does not promote this or that religion (i.e., take any steps toward establishing religion) does not in the least curtail the freedom of individuals to express and practice their religious beliefs. It is only when someone acts in an official capacity (as an agent or instrument of government) that he or she is constrained not to say or do what the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing.

    And it has nothing whatever to do with someone taking offense. Under our Constitution, the government simply has no business promoting religion–regardless of whether anyone is offended.

  6. diane thronton said, on January 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Separation of church and state…RE: no church of England..RE: no church of the United States of America.
    Corey…the cross did not offend the ratifier of the constitution John Witherspoon…he said (paraphased) if you don’t love God, you don’t love your country.
    John Adams said the constitution is for a moral and upright people, totally inadequate for the governing of any other.
    Fisher Ames, Noah Webster = Christians..
    “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. “–Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

  7. rhoda1956 said, on January 22, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    Turkey is a Secular Democracy, TRUE separation oh cami, synagogue or church and state. Damn, the Framers were far from having any trust in Religion mixing with Government, simply put.

    One’s own religion is after all a matter between oneself and one’s Maker and no one else’s.
    Mohandas Gandhi

    Rhoda Strict Constitutionalist because I READ and READ and READ

  8. The Glenn Beck Review said, on June 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

    I have a post up today about James Madison’s views about the separation of church and state that you might enjoy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: