THE LAW IS THE LAW!
I really love this one. This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!



So Be It!

THE LAW IS THE LAW

So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.

And if the U. S. Supreme Court says "Under God" needs to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, then, so be it,

And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.

I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.

I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.

I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart. BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?

Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its "Hundreds of Thousands" employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.

I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.

I'd like the " US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as EVERY Sunday." After all, Sunday is just another day.

I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all CHRISTMAS is just another day.

I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....

I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....

What do you all think????

If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions" and begin, once again, to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people.

SO BE IT...........

Please Dear Lord,

Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!

'Amen' and 'Amen'

These are definitely things I never thought about but from now on, I will be sure to question those in government who support these changes.

I wont.
There should be a separtion of the church and the state.

Just another sign that God's rest is near - a time where you won't find any of His adversaries.

Yea, and time for the "true church" to reign. Come on God's King.

But then the politicians wouldnt have as many holidays to go home and relax after their month long vacations!!!!!!

look its not the fact that Government is tryin to elminate God, it the Speration of Church and state, plus would you like it someone from another religion started postin their beliefs all over the place? I dont go around sayin Goddess bless, because i respect ya'lls beliefe, i wouldnt mind the same from every other Religion out there.

i agree with wiccan.
its not that they don't believe, its how it has to be.

I can agree withyou to a point on that one wic. My main issue is that this "seperation" is out of control and it is more a cse of someone trying to make somemoney in court any more.
For example, the high school coach that was fired because the school got sued for the team having a prayer session before the game? That was just plain assinine. No one forced nayone to huddle in and pray, and I seriously doubt anything would havebeen said if someone stepped back from it while the resy prayed.
The freedom of religion does not mean to ban religious activities and such. It is meant to allow them for thos who want to participate. If you dont want to paricipate then just mind your bsiness and step back from it. No harm, no foul. HOwever, do not try and stop someone else from expressing their belief either.

Now im not sayin God should be forgotten im just sayin that religion is a home and church thing not a shout to the world that im here. Yeah wear you medalions but be open minded to others beliefes... i read the Koran in middle school now i fight religious fanatics in Iraq, i dont blame the religion i blame the People..

exactly. Do not ban it fromothers, just dont expect everyone to fall in line with your beliefs either.

lol by the gods thats funny

lol what you all are forgetting is there doing what we as "americans" whine to them to do. we want to be politicall correct so as not to offened an whiny babys out there

i lov my father but the only fight i ever won was on flag burning hes x army and was in two wars, i am for it he was against. i told him i personally will never do it but weather he liked it or not "He" fought for my right to do that. that doent make it right, but american is home of the i can say what i want and offend who ever till they bann my butt country. like it or not americans dont always stand up and fight of the "right" things

iam not trying to offend, just make a point

smartass, lol

Good finally a time when God will be put to rest and we won't be called his adversaries any more. That will be a great day. I'm with you on that one.

Wait a sec. Brumalia and Eoster were the names of the festivals that preceded Christmas and Easter, respectively. They didn't worship the Judeo-Christian God. Those were pagan celebrations. So, why don't we all just calm down, and keep celebrating our rich pagan heritage? Now ya know, and knowing is half the battle.

Whoever wrote this is severely challenged in a twisted kind of way. That person states certain facts that relate to society being at peace, by keeping religious beliefs out of the law and our government. Then TWISTS it completely out of shape by saying



If they really want to see what eliminating 'THEIR'God from a country means, perhaps they should imagine living in communist Russia.

No laws have changed, no one has been denied thier right to exercise their religious beleifs on a personal level.

I can only see this kind of post and frivalous writing as the product of one whose station in life gives them nothing better to complain about than the lack of a shared belief in 'their' God. If that's thier biggest problem in life, then they need to volunteer for missionary work and leave their secure, safe happy little life behind them and see the 'real world'.

These kinds of posts and emails are just backdoor proselytizing by a religion that got kicked out of the public spotlight where it had no business being in the first place.

there is no line saying separation of church and state in the constitution

just so you know

it is a little more than that

I have said this so many times and no one listens.

Kat

Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too
strongly or too often that this great nation was founded . . . . .
on the gospel of Jesus Christ."

John Quincy Adams, our nations 6th president, said in a July 4th
speech in 1837, " . . . . the Declaration of Independence . . . . laid
the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of
Christianity."

The U. S. Supreme Court in 1892 stated, " Our laws and our
institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise.
In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Separation between church and state?

This phrase is often coupled with the First Amendment of our
Constitution. But, the First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The words "separation", "church" or "state" are not found in the First Amendment. In fact, the statement separation of church and state, is in no founding document associated with the United States of America.

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders clear. Before they approved the final wording, this amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and was involved in extensive discussion. These discussions are recorded in the congressional records, and they make clear the intent of the First Amendment.

Our Founders were saying: we don't want in America what we had in Great Britain - one church - the Anglican Church - the Church of England.
We will not all be Anglicans, nor Catholics, nor Congregationalists nor Baptists. "By our form of government", says a 1799 court ruling, "the
Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

In other words, we will be a Christian nation, adhering to God's
principles, ((but we don't want one particular Christian denomination running things)).
Our nation was founded on religious principles. Christian, because our Founders were Christians. In fact, 52 of the 55 Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of mainstream Christian churches. And, these Founding Fathers never considered a separation of church and state as we know it today. As a matter of fact in the same speech of John Adams mentioned earlier he stressed that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and
civil government would be tied together in what he called an
'indissoluble' bond. Bonding, fusing, a tying together of religion and government - NOT SEPARATION.

Connecticut, has a major part in the history of the
concept of separation between government and religion. In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to then President, Thomas Jefferson, that they had heard a rumor that the Congregationalists were going to be made the national denomination. Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury
Baptists, assuring them that the First Amendment had erected "a wall of separation between church and state." His letter explained to the Baptists that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination, and that the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control. This was a letter very much in synch with
the founding fathers and the First Amendment. Yet this letter was misused to establish our modern concept of separation between church and state.

Jeffersons letter was to support the idea that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles and practices in official policy.
But, in 1947 in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson's entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced: "The First Amendment has erected (and here are the
eight words) 'A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.' That wall must be kept high and impregnable." This was a new philosophy for the Court. ((It had taken the eight words from Thomas Jefferson's letter completely out of context.))

After this case, the Court began to speak frequently of a separation of church and state, broadly explaining that this is what the Founders wanted - this is their great intent. The court failed to quote the Founders; it just asserted that this is what they wanted.

The courts continued on this track so steadily that in 1958 in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent, warning, that if the court did not stop talking about the separation of church and state, people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

Dr. William James, the father of Modern Psychology, said "There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it." Oh, well.

In 1962 in the case of Engel v.Vitale, the Court delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education; the case struck down school prayer. And, in this case, the Court redefined the word "church". For 170 years prior, the word, "church" - as used in the phrase, "separation of church and state" was defined to simply mean, "a federally established denomination." However,
the Court now explained that the word, "church", would mean "a religious activity in public".

This was the major turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment. The Court had just announced a brand new
doctrine. With no historical or legal precedent - it now could prohibit religious activities in public settings.

And, listen to the prayer in dispute - the prayer that caused this decision to be made: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

This prayer which could be said by any believer in God regardless of which religion - this prayer which acknowledges God only once, the same number of times as in the Pledge of Allegiance and only one fourth of the times as in the Declaration of Independence, was rendered unconstitutional. When the Court declares something unconstitutional it
is inferring that our Founding Fathers - the men who drafted the
Constitution - would have opposed it. In this case this is absolutely NOT true. This was a brand new doctrine with no legal or historical precedent.


Kat