bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) I have a feeling that when Thomas Jefferson was discussing Seperation of Church and State and the First Amendment, he was talking about issues like this, not about saying a prayer in school or things like that. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would decide how such an issue would be resolved? One thing is for sure, they WOULD NOT expect the Federal Government to make the decision. I believe that this would have been a states rights issue. The Founders believed that the people would VOTE with their feet. If you agree with the policies and laws of a particular state you would stay there, if you disagreed you would find a state that held similar views and set out to live there. This is what is so wonderful about the separate 50 states, they were never intended to all be clones, but rather unique, just like individuals. Jefferson was writing to a lady who was a member of the Danberry(spelling) Baptist. The lady was concerned that the size of the new government could infringe upon her right to worship, she feared that a STATE religions might one day be imposed. Jefferson, assured her that there was a wall of separation between church and state that would not permit that to happen. The letter and his answer had absolutely nothing to do with not permitting people to pray in public, etc. The lamestream media, some revisionist history and some legislation from the court bench has led us to this faulty interpretation of separation of church and state. I agree with you on this one! Edited May 10, 2012 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixcat 2,922 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Thanks Bucfan, good perspective. I also found this to be an interesting article. A friend sent it to me on Twitter shortly after I posted on here. http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/thoughts-on-the-minnesota-marriage-amendment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugsbunny 12 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 [i also do not think that it appropriate to compare inherited and unchangeable racial traits with non genetic and changeable behavior. "Same sex" marriage is sterile by nature and therefore only appeals to the personal gratification of those involved, therefore it does not need to be protected or promoted by the state as a legal institution. I agree 100%! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total 12 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) I kid... I kid Edited May 11, 2012 by total Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.