Separation of Church and State – a Liberal lie!

If the liberal left is accurate, and our nation was NOT established on Biblical principles, why do you suppose the first book published in the new world was the New England Primer, a reading book for children? This was used to teach the Alphabet for decades. Here little rhymes are used to help children learn the Alphabet:

New England Primer, pub 1777

The first assertion of this interpretation, widely accepted today, was in 1942. From 1776 through 1942, the phrase, “Separation of Church and State” was not an issue. It was generally accepted in both education and law that the Framers’ definition referred simply to a prohibition of a State sanctioned religion/denomination as had happened in England.

Take the little quiz below and see how much you really know about the first amendment!

First Amendment Quiz

Advertisement

Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series Parts 1 – 3

Clearly, Christian principles mead up the foundation of this United States of America. The notorious “separation of Church and State” phrase was intended by the Founding Fathers to prohibit ONLY the formation of a State Church as in England. The meaning of that phrase was radically changed as recently as 1962, and then with NO LEGAL PRECEDENT to support the reversal by the Supreme Court. It does also prohibit the forcing of any religion on any individual, but not to the extent a believer is prohibited from the exercise of his faith, as is currently practiced.

If Socialism is the Answer, What’s the Question?

I wrote yesterday about a conversation I had with a reasonably intelligent man my age who believes Obama deserves a chance to finish what he has started. I have a very difficult time with this viewpoint as explained in part yesterday. (4 More or Not?)

If wealth distribution is the objective, and the target is the top 1%, I have to ask …

Does anyone REALLY think those in the top 1% are going to give their money away to those able, but unwilling to work? REALLY?
Does anyone really think they should???

While it may be true that no individual needs $25 million dollars to survive, similarly, do able-bodied, unemployed individuals deserve an allowance from Uncle Sam sufficient to sustain a level of existence better than those willing to work for minimum wage?

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor

It’s one thing to DONATE to one’s CHOSEN philanthropic organization(s). It’s something altogether different to be required to pay the government that money to be given arbitrarily to … Solyndras?, to Kennedy’s green corp, to union bosses to pay back into the Democratic coffers and other self-interest groups.

It may be futile, but I AM trying to understand the appeal of Socialism. Of course it sounds good to those with little, because it gives them a hope of … more. I can even understand the appeal to the Educational elite, philosophers, who have always leaned left. These communal philosophies ALWAYS sound good on paper. It’s when you invest these ideals into people that the flaws are obvious.

• If I will receive $1500/mo from the government whether I work or not, why should I work? What motivates me to work?
• If I make the same $1500 whether I work 10 hrs or 80 hrs, why on earth would I work 80 hrs?
• If I make $1500 whether I improve a technique in medicine or botch every procedure I attempt, well …
• If the reward for excellence is removed along with the sense of accomplishment for a job well done, what gives life purpose?

Socialism is NOT the Answer, but the question is:
Is GREED your motivation?

RELATED READING:

Senate passed S. 1867 bill that may give President power to arrest U.S. citizens w/out trial

Is the IRON CURTAIN, thanks to Obama closing on the USA?

For 2012, Be Wary of Obama’s Ties to Corrupt Project Vote