• 

Letter to the Editor: Sept. 25, 2015

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Don Dix

Liz Marlia-Stein writes ... "This documentary highlights the state of public education and how school districts constantly struggle for funding ..."

If this 'film' does not discuss or point directly to the big black hole that is salaries, health insurance, and PERS as major causes of financial insolvency, then it is nothing but a propaganda piece ... most likely produced with public employee union prejudice. Odds being 80/20 (or higher)!

Don Dix

Fred Fawcett is on the right track. Very seldom do elected reps. go against the grain, and even less against their personal well-compensated position. Reading and comprehension are of little value when the 'science is settled' ... right?

Mudstump

Dennis Carmody - You are correct that the exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, however the words "religious freedom" don't appear there either. Yet, for years we have interrupted the words to mean that there is a separation of church and state and that there will be religious freedom. You can't say one is valid and the other is not.

Mudstump

Dennis Carmody - I would like to ask you how one has religious freedom without a separation of church and state?

RLC

Mudstump - Here is the difference between freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Freedom of religion is a rewording of a phrase with exactly the same meaning: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Separation of church and state is not found in word or meaning in the constitution. It was lifted from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson where he was stating that the church should be protected from the government, not that the government should be protected from the church.

Mudstump

RLC - the separation of church and state was not merely mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Others including those who founded the baptist church in America insisted upon this "wall of separation," as well as the Supreme Court have citing the "separation of church and state" in a number of cases. It is as well established and accepted as the principle of "freedom of religion." It is nonsense to claim that there is no basis for a separation. Are you suggesting this country was founded as a theocracy?

RLC

Mudstump - the wall of separation that was insisted upon was always a wall protecting the church from the government. The 1957 use by the Supreme Court was an intentional complete reversal of the historical use and meaning of that phrase. Our nation was not a theocracy, but rather a democratic republic with its laws and constitution based squarely on the Bible (the 3 branches of government is one of hundreds of examples). In some states you were not even allowed to serve in public office unless you were a Christ-follower. I am not advocating that in this day, but it is an example of the intentions of the founders. 29 of the 56 signers attended what would be today seminaries or Bible colleges. I am saying that the founders intended this to be a Christ-honoring nation, with freedom for those who wished to personally believe otherwise. I believe that if the founders had foreseen how upside-down our nation has become over these issues, they would have been even more specific. I don't have time to go back and forth with you. You can check out wallbuilders.com if you wish to know more. God bless you in your quest for truth.

RLC

Typo - 1947, not 1957

Lulu

RLC: How many of your exalted Founding Fathers owned slaves?

miketubbs1

Lulu, how many of your own 'exalted' ancestors had?

Lulu

My paternal grandparents arrived here in 1915. On my mother's side, they graced our land in 1880.

RLC

Lulu said "your exalted Founding Fathers." MY founding fathers? Not yours? I think this is part of the problem. We have a constitution. It can be changed. But until then, we have one. Why have we had one form of government and one constitution for over 200 years while the rest of the world changes governments and constitutions regularly? Because ours has been unbelievably blessed. For someone in 2015 to assume they are more enlightened than those who founded this nation is at least arrogant.

And to bring up slavery is avoiding the issue.

Not going to go down this road with you. www.wallbuilders.com

Lulu

How could people advocate a "Christ-honoring nation" while at the same time own slaves? With wives treated like chattel? These are a couple of the hazardous stretches on the road you refuse to travel.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable