[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

then you my friend hold beliefs that are in violation of the 1st amendment. the answer is no separation of church and state isn't in the constitution.the 1st amendment disagrees with that policy on every level.

First, if you are going to insult me, please do not call me friend. Its patronizing.

Secondly, separation of church and state has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. Nothing whatsoever. I am aware of the origin of the phrase, and the first amendment, and nothing in the first amendment precludes separation.

The first amendment sets up that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The key thing here is that for the government to neither prefer or prohibit, they kind of need to butt out. American Christianity wants to violate the 1st amendment by wanting the government to respect an establishment of religion, while zealously fighting to keep the government from prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

My views are much less nationalistic. I believe the church should butt out of American politics, and be left alone by government. If we live out our lives as followers of Christ it will effect our hearts and minds. That in turn will effect society. However, since that requires actual righteous living, we try to bypass the whole living our faith thing and just illegally legislate respecting of the establishment of religion. I do not believe being American matters much. I do not believe the US constitution has anything to do with how Christians should live.

Its why I would support governments getting out of the marrying business.

Now, I might point out that State governments could theoretically establish preference of religion and such under JUST the US Constitution. It would not be a violation of the first amendment, if say, Idaho decided to allow only Sikhs to hold office. There are other problems with that scenario, but nothing in the first amendment precludes it.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

ah but thats is just in a state. thanks to old abe we are now a union and do not have the state soverenty that our founders wanted us to have.

Considering it was the Framers who wrote: "We the People [and not, it shoudl be noted, the States] of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...," I would suggest that the framers did, indeed have a view to forming a union that retained some state sovreignty, but was a union, still.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

ah but thats is just in a state. thanks to old abe we are now a union and do not have the state soverenty that our founders wanted us to have.

And two slightly smaller unions would have been better?

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

the constitution supports and is bassed on the bible thus we know what the founders thought about being gay and shouldn't read into the constitution but rather read it in context.

Wrong. If the constitution is based on the bible as you claim, please explain to me why the only purpose of the 21st amendment is to destroy the 18th? Are both 'based on the bible?'

Originally Posted by jesus_for_me

then you my friend hold beliefs that are in violation of the 1st amendment. the answer is no separation of church and state isn't in the constitution.the 1st amendment disagrees with that policy on every level.

I'm not sure which first amendment you're reading... because it pretty much disagrees with you word-for-word. I think Bill covered this adequately.