When I hear of the violation of rights in our local school systems, I am appalled. In Texas many, if not all schools have Zero Tolerance rules. If a person (a student)is attacked by other student(s), they are not permitted the right to defend themself without repurcussions - namely getting expelled or suspended along with the attackers.

In the real world of adult life, if someone attacked us, not only would we have a constitutional right to defend ourself, but the police would be called and the attacker would be hauled down to the local jail.

Children are not supposed to pray in school now. Well, why not? What in the world is it going to hurt? On the other hand, forbidding them to pray is an infringement of their right to free speech.

And why can't a teacher in a science class tell students that carbon dating doesn't work so well beyond ten thousand years? I have seen it in textbooks of non-religious colleges.

Exactly who is being repressive here? Sounds an agenda to me.

Oh, and what about illegal search and seizure - or any number of other rights violated regularly in the public schools across America?

There's my rant. Now, God bless you all, and Jesus loves you! And I hope you take that in the spirit it is intended.

What an astute and forceful expression of our fundamental liberties. I applaud you. Well Done.

I also think several of the posts on here are making some broad assumptions based on what they think, or have been told, that our country was based on. Are you all sure it was based on freedom for freedom's sake alone?

I suppose the whole argument does point to the fact that one cannot separate values from education, or mandate values in education. Does that mean education should be sterilized to remove all values? (That is not what seems to be happening, actually - but a purge of Christian influence in public school appears to be taking place.)

This all points to a need for vast changes in education. Young people need training, and they need values. Instead they spend most of their hours in a school which if it were "fair" to all would include no character or values training. Their parents, who should be training them in character and values, have minimal hours and these are often the leftovers - when everyone is tired, stressed and trying to get ready for bed.

I guess that's what happens when parents turn over their responsibilities to the government.

One more note, there are many influences in public schools which are not being removed or neutralized, which are just as offensive as Christian values are to some parents.

We haven't "given up" anything. We have asserted that people can pray anywhere and anytime (who can stop you from having a silent prayer?) BUT we have also said that the Govt. does NOT have the right to require other people to pause and give attention to the prayers and posturings of those who wish to pray. Unless I am terribly mistaken, the phrase "under God" remains in the official pledge to the flag. Opponents to that phrase do not mean to assert that YOU do not recognise God, they wish to simply have a pledge which does not compell them to give allegiance to something they don't believe in. Why, as a faithful Christian, would you wish to force others into a pledge or covenant which they do not believe in. What is wrong with "one nation, indivisible"? If you wish to believe you are "under god"----that is fine. Why do you wish to impose that view on others?

As for the "10 Commandments"----it is not the moral values they espouse---it is the context from which they are drawn that is a problem. They are presented as "laws" or "rules" from the Jewish/Christian Bible. There is nothing WRONG with Jews/Christians subscribing to those values----and most Americans would say those values are good. The problem is that they are presented as unassailable religious doctrines FROM those traditions, and as such, are being imposed on people who do not subscribe to those religions. While some have tried to pretend they are simply great teachings from the past, the truth is, everyone knows they are backdoor attempts at imposing specific religious traditions on the populace. Why do religious people feel they have to impose their private and personal religious views on the nation through law and legislation? Are they so insecure in their "faith" that they must have the weight of law/legislation to support them? Why not do as Jesus and his disciples did? "Go out into the world and proclaim the gospel----" and if you are sincere in your efforts and in your actions, "you will be known by the fruit you bear"; it appears to me that most so-called "christians" lack the real faith to risk themselves---they wish to hide behind laws which compell others to acknowledge their views-----rather than compelling others by the strength and depth of their personal faith and commitment.

Just My View----

The problem is that some people are equating the moral base of a country's legal system with spiritual matters, which are truly a matter of the heart. I don't think anyone is under the impression that any other person can be forced in matters of the heart. They cannot.

I DO think many Americans want to protect against a redefinition of what is just, a redefinition of our legal base, which can and will lead to atrocities which none of us here would ever believe to be just. Whether they are going about it in all the right ways . . . maybe some yes, maybe some no.

And some of us even feel good about the foundations of our country, and don't like the historical facts being changed to a lie.

May I impose on your friendship for a moment? I have come to recognize you as a thoughtful person and I deeply respect your views. I fear I have been labeled as "anti-christian" or "anti-religious" when in truth, I have probably pursued religious knowledge more seriously than almost anyone here. For the sake of discussion only, let me ask you this: In exactly what ways have the "majority" been forced to give up their "rights of expression" in favor of minorities? Is there not a difference between the right of expressing one's views, and a law which compells one to acknowledge or yield to the views of another?

For example, to my knowledge, there is NO LAW which says you cannot pray at any time you wish (who can keep you from crying out to your god at any time?)--- but those who interpret our Constitution seem to be saying that NO ONE has the right to require others to pause and give obeisance to your prayers. Would you wish to be forced to pause while an atheist publicly and audibly gives expression to his/her doctrines of atheism? People who wish to publicly express their religious views have churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to do that. As I understand it, the LAW asserts that you are free to hold whatever religious views you hold dear---BUT, you do NOT have the right to require anyone else to listen or give public acquiescence to those views. Hence, public prayers in schools have been held to be unconstitutional. Children can still pray privately and quietly, they just do not have the right to require others to pause and pay attention to them while they do so. What is wrong with that?

The pledge to the Flag is interesting. I remember when it was changed back in the late 40's or early 50's----I was in the 5th grade I think. The pledge is a NATIONAL pledge---and Americans of many different religious backgrounds are asked to give it. To my knowledge, the phrase "under God" remains in the pledge---however, many find that phrase offensive. In America, we have people from many different religous backgrounds and traditions; as a sincere religious person, why would you wish to impose a pledge/phrase which many find offensive, n your fellow citizens and neighbors?Wouldn't "one nation, indivisible" be more unifying and reflective of the real American tradition than one which requires an allegiance to a "deity" which many otherwise deeply patriotic citizens deny? Why would you wish to impose that on your neighbors and fellow citizens?

As to the 10 Commandments----it is not the moral precepts they convey, it is the religious context from which they are drawn that is offensive.they are offered as commandements from a particular religious tradition and from a particular religious "deity"--every honest person knows that this is simply a backdoor attempt at projecting the judeo/christian ethic into the public forum under the guise of "public good" while camoflauging its ulterior motive of evangelising under the protection of Law. The use of public funds/resources to evangelise or convert to a particular religious view is unconstitutional. THAT is at the heart of the "separation of church and state" statute. If a christian really believes that his/her view/understanding is worthwhile and true, why do you require the weight of Legislation to support your views? Why not do like Jesus and put your views out there to be accepted or rejected----why do you want Laws to protect YOUR view to the exclusion of others? Lack of faith or what?

Bob---let me be clear----this is NOT an attack on YOU----I am simply asking for honest discussion on basic and simple issues which you raised. I have no quarrel with honest religious persons, just those smug, self-righteous twits who assume THEY have some inside track on truth and faith---and wish to impose those views on everyone else. I trust you to respond on an academic and thoughtful level----perhaps we can have an honest discussion of religious views without all the posturing and whining of the fundamentalists who seem to think they can say whatever they please and if anyone questions them, they can simply retreat into the mantra of "you are being unfair" without any supporting data or documentation.

I have copied the Exodus 20 version of the commandments from a website. I did not crosscheck with my Bible to see if they are word-for-word, but assume they are. There are 17 numbered verses. Some of them state moral positions which most of us accept, such as not killing or bearing false witness. I take the position that while some of the moral codes probably should be and are taught in various contexts (not necessarily as being among the commandments) others are far more troubling, particularly so when people insist they should be posted in public places, such as schools and courthouses. Things like, I am the Lord they God (clearly a religious statement); thou shalt have no other gods before me; thou shalt not make graven images of anything and bow down before it (does everyone who kneels in church violate that commandment?); thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. (By the way, what is the Lord's name? It's probably not God, because that is a term that Romans, Greeks, and many others have used for a variety of gods.)It commands people to remember the sabbath day, but it doesn't say which day that is. Many Christians believe it is Sunday; many other religious people choose Saturday. Most people don't follow the commandment not to do any work on that day; and some who do don't seem to mind going to a restaurant or movie or mall or watch an NFL football game, which forces others to work.

I subscribe to your approach. If you believe, more power to you to believe, and you have every opportunity to exercise that belief.

But if others don't believe, you should not try to force them to accept the Old Testament's list of rules which were handed down to and for the Israelites.

Here's what I copied from the web site:

Exodus 20:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I swear--You, Bob and I have GOT to to get together----maybe we can find a time later this Spring when we can all 3 meet down there and eat some good food----drink some good nectar---and talk some good talk. Your ideas are very good---hang in there

As far as law goes, I don't feel the need of any kind of law to protect my views. We already have one called the First Ammendment. When we look at courthouse displays, the 10 Commandments aren't just an example of religious law. They are an example of historical law. Would anyone ban the Magna Carta from a courthouse? Again, there is no law saying the 10 Commandments must be posted, only that they may NOT be posted.

Now for the pledge. In California didn't they just (lower courts, I mean) rule that "under God" must not be used? I don't know if it's made it to the Supreme Court yet, but if anyone doesn't wish to say "under God," who says they have to? If I wish to include it, who's being hurt by it? I do think I heard of someone pushing a law to include "under God", but I don't think it's necessary. I'm against forcing anyone to say it my way, but I'm definitely against some Peoples' Republic of California judge telling me that I CAN'T say "under God." LRJ, I'm pretty sure that if we each stood together to say the pledge, each in his OWN way, we'd be just fine. The only thing we would need to fight over is if someone tried to stop us from saying the pledge at all! Then it'll be Katie-bar-the-door! I would also fight for your right to say it in the way you want (as I believe I've said before, no one should have God forced upon him.)

LRJ, if anyone has taken offense to what I've said, I truly apologize. And I seriously enjoy your input. After all, I think we'd both become seriously bored if we always saw eye-to-eye on everything. Just remember, my whole train of thought is that I (and many others) are simply tired of being told, "Stop that! You'll offend someone."

We must have some kind of rules - without laws and rules we have anarchy. And it is a historical fact our country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.

Does this mean we can force someone else to be a Christian or a Jew? No, you cannot. Does this mean they must obey the laws of the land, many of which were founded on old testament law? Yes. And to remove the 10 Commandments from public buildings is like trying to hide the historical truth. Why would we try to rewrite history? What are we trying to prove?

Out of curiosity-----how the hell does an 8 or 9 year old child (or even older---say 13-16) KNOW what they need to learn in order to live and compete in today's world? Your post seems to assume that a CHILD ("the student has no influence on the product they consume") should have the final word on what they need to study and learn. Does that really make sense to you?

My husband and I have also homeschooled our five children. It has been a financial sacrifice at times, and he schooled them one year.

But it has been worth it. Our oldest is now in college on a full scholarship based on her SAT scores. One down, four to go.

Democratic = majority rules

republic = constitutional rights spelled out so that the minority's rights are not taken away by the majority.

During the War of 1812, an angry mob smashed the printing presses of a Baltimore newspaper that dared to come out against the war. When the mob surrounded the paper's editors, and the state militia refused to protect them, the journalists were taken to prison for their own protection. That night, the mob broke into the prison, killed one journalist and left the others for dead. When the mob leaders were brought before a jury, they were acquitted.
Alexis de Tocqueville tells this chilling story in "Democracy in America," and warns that the greatest threat the United States faces is the tyranny of the majority, a phrase he is credited with coining. His account of his travels through America in the 1830's, which is often called the greatest book ever written about America, is both an appreciation of American democracy, and a cautionary tale about its fragility.

I am not a Catholic----but I am a student of History. No offense Roan---and I assume you will squeal that you're "a lady" and exempt from challenge---however, I found your post offensive----people did indeed come to this country on religious grounds, not just because of the Roman Catholic Church but because of the efforts of rigid right-wing Protestant groups as well---! They also came for political reasons, and for the opportunity to make a life for themselves based on their own ability to work and make their own way. Isn't that What LL glorifies in his writings?

Since this is a Louis L'Amour site, and we honor his writings, where do you find that the fountain heads of his stories came here because of the persecutions of the Catholic Church-----and do you not understand that the "witch hunts" and other persecutions in New England were perpetrated not by the Catholic Church but by fundamentalist protestant group. Your post was not only offensive to Catholics, it was offensive to those of us who know a bit about History as well.

Nope, the truth is, you are lacking in all the virtues you pretend to claim for yourself. You even lack the common decency to to say "Thank You" to someone who went to a lot of trouble and expense to send you books that you requested. I had to contact you to see if they had arrived---you didn''t even have the decency to say they had arrived and "thankyou" until after I forced your hand by by asking if you had received them.

The truth is, you want to express your uninformed and ignorant opinions without opposition, and when anyone opposes your views, you try to hide behind the cry of "I'm a Lady"!

Before you start on your silly little program of pretending that I am taking advantage of poor little old feminine YOU----maybe you can (without the stupid "rolling of eyes") explain exactly how it is that that my disagreement with your lack of basic civility and courtesy is wrong? You do not even know how to say "Thank You"---you think the world owes you---you are shallow and superficial----I am sick of you and your ilk!

It appears to be up to the interpretation of the principles and/or school boards.

First of all, lets get this whole "Separation of Church and State" out of the conversation! It doesn't exist, it is NOT in the US Constitution, it is a phrase taken from a letter not an official document or statement of intent! THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Okay, next. It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion! If simply hearing someone pray, being forced to read a bumper sitcker, or having to take part in a moment of silence challenges your belief system than yahoo! We've got dialog.

Iceman, I'm sorry but you kind of lost me a little. First you confirm that the country was founded on the principals of religious freedom and then you minimize the importance of prayer before a football game. Then we suddenly have the RIGHT not to be attacked (really it's my right not to be attacked and not my duty to make sure we are protected from such?). Are we fighting for the rights of ALL people in this country? You bet. But doesn't that mean we are fighting for the rights of those that DO want to pray in public too? And if someone can pray in silence if they want to can't someone else choose not to pray out loud or at all if everyone else around them is praying? If we've lost focus on the little things, why are we fighting for the right to pray before the big game? And by the way, there is not law banning the celebration of Christ's birth in public schools. There are however a lot of schools that are trying to change age old traditions and even the lyrics to songs to try and eliminate Christmas.

Joe from Ballard, we are in this country and we have the right to our opinions and to state them . . . unless they are in the form of a prayer that is. Then just shut up right? Your use of the whole prayer in a closet quote is a twisting of the meaning. Jesus was admonishing his deciples against the sin of pride! He wanted them to pray because the really believed and from the heart, NOT because they wanted their next door neighbor to believe that about them. The point was not that prayer should be a private thing. Good lord man, Jesus prayed in public all the time!! I object to rock painting because it is unnatural. If you don't like the bumper sticker, don't honk! If your beliefs are strong but private, great. Why does it sound like you feel threatened by others expressing their beliefs though? So threatened that you want to silence them.

Longrifle, you scare me a little. You use words like "posturings" (see my above about the real meaning of Matthew 6:6), require and assert, backdoor attempts, and impose. Is it such an imposition to have a pledge that aknowledges the fact that this country was founded by people that believed that God was above? You say the 10 commnadments are "Presented as "laws" or "rules" from the Jewish/Christian Bible" Hello! They are laws and rules from the Bible. Fact not presentation. They are unassailable and they are the basis for all our laws. We impose laws all the time! Ask your local dope smoker if he likes it but I bet you don't have a problem "imposing" on him. Then they "pretend they are simply great teachings from the past." Are they NOT? What's so backdoor about aknowledging where our country and laws came from? Okay, as a good christian I am going to go out and proclaim the gospel only I can't proclaim it out loud as that would force non-believers to hear me. I will be known by the fruit I bear. Want to know the biggest piece of fruit in my basket? This country based on a Judeo Christian ethic and tolerent of others!

Longrifle - when did religion become offensive? Simply because one doesn't ascribe to a particular belief doesn't make it wrong or bad or offensive. Using your own words, you have to judge all things by the "fruit they bear." Would you rather live in a country that bears fruit based on Muslim laws? I on the other hand, like the fruit born of our distinctly Judeo Christian - 10 Commandments based form of government and civilization. Funny thing about us christians, we don't even really care whether you believe or not. It won't stop us from fertilizing our fruit tree.

I do find it intellectually dishonest when people retreat into the whole "separation of church and state" thing as though it was a real part of our constitution. It is a catch phrase of the anti-religious that ignores 400 years of history. The clause is the "Establishment" clause and it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." What most people forget is that it continues on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!" There is no right to freedom from religion. Sorry not there.

Joe - No matter how you slice it, the 10 Commandments are the basis for our laws. You can whine and moan about the whole Lord our God thing all you want and it doesn't change the fact that your laws are based on those commandments. Not the Holy Koran, not Lao Tsu, not Mao, not Gandi, not Buddah, not Plato (although somewhat), not Cesar, not Druidic tradition, and not Greek, Norse or Roman Mythology. Break it all down and eventually you get back to the 10 commandments. Sorry but that's the facts Jack.

As for working on the 7th day. Well that's between me and my God but in some places they don't sell liquor on Sundays, and stores can't be open on Christmas.

Longrifle Joe and Roan - Joe you spanked the Roan for basically saying exactly what you said. She focused on a single issue of persicution (Catholics vs Protestants) and you like totally go off on her and then you ask for an example of Catholic on Protestant persecution from a Louis book as though there was no such thing. Perhaps Louis didn't go into specifics but and after all, we really only have one book that deals with the westward migration from England to America, Sackett's Land. While Louis doesn't specifically address the religious issues, you get the feeling that because of the Sackett Second sight and druidic backgrounds that there was an undercurrent of trouble with the official English Church. Claiming offence and insulting the roan for correctly identifying one of the reasons that people came to this country is simply uncalled for and you should be ashamed! As for you stating the obvious that religious persicution in the Americas was done by protestants . . . DUH! After all, they were the only ones here! Who else would do the persicutin' State the obviuos why don't you! Political reasons my butt! They were avoiding the politics of religion! It was called inforced uniformity of religion and everyone believed it. It was only the Catholics that got it institutionlaized as the official religion for most European states and that is what drove the other religions off somewhere where they could enforce their own brand of uniformity. You do a lot of name calling for someone who could use a little educatin' your ownself! I'd start with grace and manners were I you. Then I'd move sharply into tolerance and I'd finnish with a little dose of your own medecine. You are an overbearing, self absorbed, pretentious, know-it-all. Like it?

Don't you just love this country! Whew I feel better and I'm off to lunch now! God bless us everyone!

RRR

I'll address only one of your comments: If simply hearing someone pray, being forced to read a bumper sitcker, or having to take part in a moment of silence challenges your belief system than yahoo! We've got dialog.

I'll turn it around. If not being able to force someone to hear your prayers in public places challenges your beliefs, then your church is failing you. In this country (Thank God) when a church feels that it's belief system is failing, the government is not allowed to force that church's doctrine onto others. That's why the concept of freedom to practice religion inherently includes the concept of freedom from religion.

I never wrote that seeing a bumper sticker challenges me in any way. I think it's sad and almost comical when people (who strike me as insecure in their beliefs) find it necessary to mount a PR campaign to demonstrate to others that they are believers. (Isn't that treading perilously close to doing it from pride instead of conviction?) Personally, I feel the same way about people who feel the need to wear large crosses around their necks. Crosses, by the way, come awfully close to being one of those graven images the commandments warn us about.

That said, I'm afraid this discussion topic is bringing us close to blows, verbal ones if not physical, so I'll say no more. By doing so I'm demonstrating that I've learned a lesson from the fate of a fellow I knew in West Kentucky. A couple of months ago he and a close friend of his were arguing about whether there's a God or not. The close friend, the one who professed a belief in God, got so worked up that he pulled a pistol and shot and killed the other one. I saw in the paper today that he has been charged with murder.

"Stupid me thought they were fighting to protect our right not to be attacked. September 11 was an attack on all of the citizens of the United States, not just the Christian, Jewish or Muslim ones. Are we not fighting also to protect the rights of those who do not want to pray or worship or the rights of those who choose not to pray and worship like it was some sort of mandate to pray in unison and in public?" Based on the discussion that was taking place what part of those sentences is confusing you? Your response to me didn't have anything to do with the point or counterpoint that was under discussion. No wonder you were amazed.

The phrase Separation of Church and State is not found in the Constitution? That is the God's honest truth. And it's absolutely irrelevant. Three points to begin absolving belief in that myth. Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." The more important cornerstone might be found in Madison's writing that there must be a "separation between Religion and Government." Or simply like many other people believe, myself included, that religion and especially prayer is a strictly private matter.

To further the argument the phrase "Bill of Rights" has become accepted to describe the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, yet it would be pretty dim to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle, but the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution either. Is religious liberty a constitutional principle? That phrase is not found in the Constitution either. The universal acceptance with which all of these terms, including that of "separation of church and state", have received in America would seem to support rather than deny the fact that they exist.

I'll close with the following quote regarding separation of Church and State from Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705.

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."

As for the Constitutional stuff, I will have to dissagree. As is usual with those that wish to maintain the myth of separation of church and state, the context of Jefferson's letter is totally left out of the equasion. The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not ESTABLISH a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world..."

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

Research has shown that in the over 15,000 political documents printed by our founding fathers between 1760 and 1805, over 94% of the quoted material was directly from the bible. In fact our 3 branch form of Government comes directly from the bible. Isaiah 33:22 says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..."

Your vernacular argument with regard to the "Bill of Rights" is false as a comparison to titling the Establishment Clause the Separation Clause. Titling the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution the Bill of Rights does nothing to change the meaning and intent of those 10 ammendments. However, you must agree that there is a world of difference between the meaning of the "Establishment Clause" and the falsly imposed title "Separation of Church and State." If there were no difference nobody would be arguing about it. And since there is such a huge difference, I think I'll stick with the original constructors and continue to call it the Establishment Clause.

And while "Fair Trial" doesn't exist, the 5th ammendment does address Grand Jury, Double Jepardy, self incrimination, and due process of law (among other things). And that all sounds pretty Fair to me. Again, your title doesn't change or misconstrue the meaning so I don't have a problem with it. Call it Fair Trial or Due Process the meaning is the same.

To be even more specific, the 6th ammendment does address prosecutions. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Sounds like Fair Trial to me.

And Justice Story, is the the same Justice that wrote "Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship."

Story is claiming here that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was widespread sentiment for aiding Christianity. And while he agrees that the government should not have the authority to command a specific religion, it was completely within its bounds to suport and encourage religion in general.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases, and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis." The phrase, "separation of church and state," has become one of these misfortunes of law."

The "one directional" claim is a complete and utter fraud that's been perpetrated via the internet and widely circulated by those that are against separation of church and state as a result. There's no telling how this got started, but some suspect it had to do with a David Barton videotpe AMERICA'S GODLY HERITAGE, the original version; it was ommited in the second version. This would have been back in the early 1990's. Barton used the "one-directional" language without directly linking it to Jefferson in his THE MYTH OF SEPARATION...I've forgotten the exact page, but it was within the first 50 pages or so.

Barton claimed that Jefferson made the following statement about Jefferson's wall metaphor in the letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

This is 100 percent unadulterated fiction. Jefferson never made ths statement, either in the Danbury Baptist letter or in any of his other writings. The fiction, however, continues to circulate, and has now become so widely distributed it's become another urban legend.

The Danbury Baptist letter did not mention nor address a concern about a national religion. This is the letter from the Danbury Baptists...(This is a cut and paste job...keep your fingers crossed.)

"The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the adiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,

Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson"

The "degrading acknowledgements" they talk about refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist Church. Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to put their religious taxes into their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption form, and a lot of Connecticut communities either made it hard to obtain the forms, or refused to approve the exemptions once it was submitted (WHAT JEFFERSON'S METAPHOR REALLY MEANS, Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). The Baptists found this to be both unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations. The Connecticut Baptists began a petition campaign in 1800 to put pressure on the Connecticut legislature to eliminate the tax. The letter to Jefferson was a part of that campaign. The Danbury Baptists were concerned with religious discrimination in the state of Connecticut; their letter to Jefferson doesn't reference the First Amendment or the federal Constitution.

Regarding the Establishment Clause, no I cannot agree...exactly. You appear to give it a much broader stroke and much more weight than I. The biggest difference between the interpretations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise Clause is the manner in which the years of rulings has treated each. (Up until this point at any rate.) The Establishment Clause has been treated very narrowly over the years while the Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted very broadly. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion...this is the fear that existed in many other countries at the time our nation was established. The Establishment clause has been interpreted this way down through the years, and it is the way it should be...in my opinion. Oddly enough this wasn't challenged until 1947 when the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, federal, state or local, must abide by the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. In subsequent years the Establishment Clause has been interpreted a little less concrete...or more broadly depending on your vantage point. History has a way of morphing if one doesn't pay close attention to it. The framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression...and often both.

I'll let you have the final word here, Rowdy. I've enjoyed the conversation. Nice job.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him "Which is the first of all the commandments?"
Jesus replied "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.' And to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that he answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Also before he gave us the Our Father prayer in request of how to pray properly to God, Jesus admonishes not to be like the hypocrites and says in Matthew Ch 6 vs 6 "But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."