Comments on: The US Constitution and Christianity

By: Straind

Straind — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:19:29 +0000

“If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion.”

This is what gets me… That was the whole reasoning for implementing this into the constitution. They didnt want to have to worry about being persecuted for their beliefs by the very government they established. (They bieng the founders)

By: Bush LB

Bush LB — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:21:44 +0000

Isn’t this what the dems are trying to get the republicans away from? I can’t WAIT until we stop electing officials because of their beliefs on one or two minor, gray area, religiously-charged issues…

By: Lefty

Lefty — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:55:47 +0000

On another note, I have been enjoying reading Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason. I would like to know what others on this site think of this intriguing book by one of the most influential founding fathers of our country. It is free at the following site. http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:55:20 +0000

Gee, I am a Christian, and I do not have a Religious Right fixation
I have a history fixation
Suzanne
I have oh never mind, what I have, I am tired
Good night

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:25:41 +0000

Suzanne, where are you going with all this stuff? Just out of curiosity, has anybody tried to force you to convert to Christianity lately? You sure do seem to have a “Religious Right” fixation.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:30:26 +0000

Comment to #4
Yes Joy you are so correct, our rights as American citizens, are based upon being a law abiding Citizen. Those who commit felonies do in fact loose �these inalienable rights � of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of (not guaranteed) happiness:
Just committing a crime does not remove these rights; it is the type of crime which removes these rights.
To shoplift does not warrant the loss one having these rights � however, a crime, which takes the life of another human, does warrant the loss of these rights.
Any crime, in which the end results, removes the ability of the victim to exercise these rights; should and usually does remove these rights from the person who committed the crime.
Suzanne

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:56:58 +0000

Well, Brooks Kinch,
How can you state you do not like me at all, when you do not even know me.
But then, to each his own
but I sure like you, or think I do
Suzanne

By: Brooks Kinch

Brooks Kinch — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:20:23 +0000

Joy, you are a breath of fresh air. I completely agree with you…

Although I don’t like Suzanne at all.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:17:16 +0000

Yes, I realize that, read my commentary of tonight – Guess the name The Wacko Moderate Wordy Drama Queen – just got my blood boiling.
But hey, this is all just fun, Right?
Suzanne

By: K. Marx

K. Marx — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:40:52 +0000

Suzanne; re: #10
It was a rhetorical question. It’s ridiculous that a judge would tell a couple that they cannot raise their child as a Wiccan. Not only did he violate the constitution, but went against every court opinion on the topic. He not only completely ignored the constitution, he ignored legal precedence (including a case with the exact same circumstances).