Now, don’t get me wrong, I am hardly a religious person, although I do consider myself rather “spiritual” in the sense that I believe that there is something bigger and better out there and that there is more than likely something more than just this mortal life on Earth.

With that said… I am a firm believer that our country was not designed to be godless. Quite the contrary, I think that it was designed to be a country with the absolute freedom to believe in God. The idea of a separation of church and state, as far as I interpret it, was intended to prevent the government from ever telling the people that a religion is right or wrong and to keep the government from every becoming a theocratic state. I do not think the intention was to keep children from praying in school so much as it was to keep the school from leading prayers or telling children what is the right or wrong religion. This current nanny state interpretation of the separation of church and state is a bunch of crap, although admittedly I take a very libertarian view on religion and government so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

People need God. Beyond religion, God represents a myriad of things to people. Whereas I don’t believe that government should have their fingers in it, on that same line is the fact that government should never be involved in limiting it either. If God represents something good to people (as Eric has certainly demonstrated here), then that is wonderful. With everything going on these days, maybe we all need some good in our lives. The idea of God is around us everywhere we turn, even in our own government. For what it’s worth. morals and values are deeply rooted in right and wrong which is tied into God and religion in its own right.

All in all, I firmly believe that we can have separation of church and state while still maintaining God’s presence in this country. It’s all a matter of interpretation, so I guess that makes this simply nothing more than my opinion.

Why is it that you seem to fail to reckognize the validation, impact , importance and role that religion has played in constructing the morals and ethics and codes of conduct in this country? And its overwhelming role in our society today as it obviously plays a huge role in the ideals, ethics and morals of our goverment ?
And why do you speek of yourself in the third person ?

But, listen, the antisocialist does not wish to turn this comment box into a debating forum, and he apologizes to Eric for posting this much. Anyway, as you astutely point out, you’re much smarter than the antisocialist is. Mainly, micky2, he’s writing this one final comment to ask: may the antisocialist quote all your comments on his pro-freedom site, in an article he’s planning about one week from now? You can be very sure that he won’t change a word of what you’ve written - in fact, that’s critical to him. He will even take you up on your challenge, and also he’ll be able to answer all your comments in greater detail.

Thank you very, very sincerely.

Your description alone makes it clear crap. Some of Jules Vernes’ writtings are historical, but fiction.
I would dare you to walk out on the street in America and talk to people and prove this ” history book to be true”, but you would probably end up in some agnostic professors office. at UCLA or some ulta left campus.
Take a look at the first item in the first amendment.

One day ou may be down on your luck, and it will more than likely be a faith based organization that will put you back on your feet.

You said;
“It simply means that he thinks government should not be involved in private religious matters. Do you think government should be? ”

Not at all, but if you try to convince me that religion does not play a role in our country or goverment, you seriously in need of getting in touch.
Spiritual influences have more to do with our goverment than you think or you would like to realize. Although I do not believe this should be the case. Most of our presidential candidates have admitted that spirituality has played a role in the foundation of morals which apply to their decision making. It should be nothing but common decency that stands behind a politicians decision making .
Fortunatly a lot of that common decency comes from people with spiritual backgrounds and the inlluence it had on them.

“Prove me wrong, instead of casting vulgar aspersions”

The real vulgarity here is that you have tried to somehow make the authors point one of deception. When all he is saying is that we should respect those that worship as much as those that dont. And that we should not allow people like you to demean the importance of faith based institutions in our country.
I work with alcoholics and addicts on a regular basis and know for a fact that these institutions offer more help in America to more in need than any other facet besides the goverment, and that they take a huge part of that burden off the hands of our goverment. And so the goverment in return offers tax exemptions and and incentives for faith based organizations, period. This is a classic example of our goverment working “WITH” faith based organizations and the influence they have on our society.

Have you ever heard of Roger Williams? He was an extremely devout Baptist instrumental in getting religion separate from government. Here is a quick quote about him from Seacoast Online, a religious history website:

“Baptists in America can trace their history back to Roger Williams. A separatist from England, Williams believed the civil government should not interfere with a person’s ’soul-liberty.’ He was the first to use the phrase ‘wall of separation’ in relation to civil and religious matters. The Baptist Church in New Hampshire was one of the organizations that pushed for disestablishment of religion in the state, resulting in the Toleration Act of 1819.”

If you call this selective citing, we’re at a definite impasse. We’re at an impasse anyway, but even more so then. Incidentally, just because a person believes in the separation of church and state, doesn’t mean that that person is not devout in his private life. It simply means that he thinks government should not be involved in private religious matters. Do you think government should be?

In any case, the principle of rights is incompatible with theocracy, and that is why we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a republic, where the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are absolute and inalienable. All the wishful thinking in the world will not make this historical fact go away. I’m very sorry.

Antisocialist, no matter what you say or think, America is a very religious and/or Christian country. And there is the First Amendment
The morals we have in our society were not derived and handed down by cavemen.
They were brought about by centuries of masses adhering to Gods wishs and the ten commandments.
When the constitution and bill of rights were written, our fore fathers new damn well that the population consisted mostly of Christians. And whatever laws were written should be consistent with the feelings and beliefs and morals of those people.

On the other side of the spectrum , you should take into account the population that exists in this country today. This is 2007 , not 1787. And as it stands there is a movement taking place to alienate those that wish to worship their God, because they dont adhere to the collective mindset of those that have more faith in global warming than ten basic rules.
We are not alienating them because they choose not to worship, they are alienating us because we choose to worship. Plain and simple.

I think you entirely miss the authors point.
Life is rough , but it does not diminish my faith.

You can find more assholes outside of the church than you can in it, got it ?