bahmer

Separation of Democrats and State
By Michael Cummings - March 22, 2019

On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter a group of Baptists wrote to him, seeking his position on religious liberty. His reply (emphasis mine):

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.
Trending: 120 Christians K**led in Nigeria and the World Remains Silent
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.

I’m not proud to admit that early in my life I believed “separation of church and state” was somewhere codified into law. When the phrase surfaced in a conversation, it would virtually halt all debate (“Welp, that’s what the law says.”). The t***h is Thomas Jefferson was not the deist people claim him to be, and he never said there should never be a connection between religion and government, only that there shouldn’t be a government-sponsored religion or theocracy.

It’s worth noting that two days after sending the letter, Jefferson attending a church service that occurred inside the House of Representatives.

Why do I mention the Danbury letter? Because we need to separate a particular religion that is far too ingrained from our way of life.

It’s hard to get to a federally-recognized definition of religion, but it’s not hard to think through it logically. As Tucker Carlson said last year of non-Democrats versus Democrats, “One side is trying to convince, the other is trying to convert.”

But what do religions share? A god, set of rules, rituals, sacrifices of various types and degrees, calls to evangelize, and a resulting utopia to which all must earn passage.

How is the Democrat party not a religion? Their deities are their political leaders who don’t stray from the message. Their rituals include wh**ever activity leads to the destruction of America and American values and traditions. Their sacrifices are actual, human sacrifices called murdering unborn and recently born babies. Through b****t harvesting, auto-registration, and indoctrination through our school systems, they seek to convert by any means possible. And while their utopia is here on earth, there is no definition Democrats will ever look upon and be satisfied with.

They even have fasting.

Since there is currently no sunlight between Democrats and the power of government, I hereby invoke the First Amendment in declaring a wall of separation between Democrats and State.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Your description sounds more in kind with the GOP, not Democrats. Well, to be accurate................it fits both parties, who's "Gods" are money and power.

Whenever a law favors one religion over another, or suppresses the expression of religious practices, that law is un-Constitutional. To desire a particular law because it matches YOUR religious beliefs, is to invite un-Constitutionality. The Constitution does not prohibit the personal expression of a lawmakers religious beliefs, it DOES, however, prohibit said lawmakers from crafting laws that favor their religion to the exclusion of other religions..................which would be the Government sponsoring a particular religion.