Sec. of State candidate Severson: There’s no such thing as separation of church and state

Apparently, the Republicans are on a quest to find the most obviously unqualified candidates for office. Mr. Severson gets the prize: he has no understanding ofn the Constitution, and he has no understanding of Minnesota election law (the last is especially glaring in a candidate for the office that administers those laws).

Great, just the perfect person for a critical job like Secretary of State — ignorant of even the most basic concepts of the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We were NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Founders were as afraid of religion and religious preference as they were of kings and monarchs. In fact, most of the Founders were Deists.

This is beyond just being stupid…

“It’s wrong for politicians to do one thing on the campaign trail to get the vote and do exactly the opposite once they get to office. To me that is an impeachable offense.”

Can we impeach him now?

I hear so many people say they are sick, sick, sick of politics. They are sick of the bashing and name calling and all that and want to sit down and have an honest dialogue – you know, hear both sides, talk it out, find common ground……

How on earth does one do that with someone like this (Severson) or those who support him? For the life of me, I don’t see how it’s possible.

Severson is awesome. He is the only candidate that is not afraid to tell the public the truth, unlike many other politicians to say whatever they can to get elected and then do the complete opposite.

Severson is awesome. He stands for honesty and truth, freedom and liberty. Who else would anyone vote for?

And he is correct, there is no constitutional clause calling for the separation of church and state. The idea of separation of church and state is just an interpretation of the statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

This interpretation has been used to remove the bible from public schools 40 years ago, perhaps the worst decision in the history of our nation. Yet, this argument for the separation of church and state is not used when adding anti-Christian religious material into the public schools.

For example, if teaching bible in public schools is against this cause then so is the teaching of evolution, which is clearly a religious idea from the beginning of time. To get around the obvious separation of church are state argument that was used to remove the bible from public schools, they argue that it is a science issue. Yet, many leading scientists remain unconvinced of evolution and its many unproven holes. Even the modern gene science has lead scientist to the fact that someone must have intelligently designed humans.

Here is the new book by the leading scientist: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472786

The social battles in America and around the world are not really about rights or handouts or unions or big/little governments – but about good and evil. The kingdom of Jesus Christ vs. the kingdom of darkness.

Leading up to the climax and the return of Jesus Christ, both are surging in strength just as scripture predicts (John 3:19, Matt. 24:11, I Tim. 4:1, Joel 2:28).

The greatest deception leading up to the return of Jesus Christ will be keeping people believing they are fighting something other than against the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

“Severson is awesome. He is the only candidate that is not afraid to tell the public the truth, unlike many other politicians to say whatever they can to get elected and then do the complete opposite. ”

Yet virtually EVERYTHING he said in this article is false.

“The idea of separation of church and state is just an interpretation of the statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

An “interpretation” by the guy who wrote the law that the amendment was based on.

“Yet, this argument for the separation of church and state is not used when adding anti-Christian religious material into the public schools. ”

What anti christian religious materials are in public schools?

“For example, if teaching bible in public schools is against this cause then so is the teaching of evolution, which is clearly a religious idea from the beginning of time”

A false statement. You once again demonstrate that you do not know the correct definition of religion.

“Even the modern gene science has lead scientist to the fact that someone must have intelligently designed humans. ”

You demonstrate that you do not know the definition of the word “fact”

Here is the new book by the leading scientist:…”

Meyer is a leading scientist at the ultra right wing and often fact free discovery institute. He is not a leading scientist anywhere else. He uses circular arguments and offers little if any evidence to back up his theories.

Wow – other than Tim, who sounds awfully like Dan Severson…(must be a pseudonym, all other previous commenters hit the nail on the head. Severson has no business being the next Secretary of State. He apparently has no knowledge of why the position exists, nor what he would need to do if elected.

I used to think a qualification for all political candidates was upper-level intelligence. The Republicans, especially during this election cycle, appear to be taking a completely different approach as they’re nominating candidates who skipped Social Studies 101, and cannot even maintain a basic understanding of laws that have existed since our nation was founded.

The founders were clear about the separation of church & state. Most were not Christian and wanted to ensure that government & religion were and always would be separate entities. It is exactly the reason why many of the earliest immigrants fled to the colonies in the first place.

To those that disagree, please brush up on your history.

Tim:

Learn your history. It is obvious with your flat earth ideas that you need to know some basics on our founding fathers, and our history as a nation. The phrase “wall of separation” is from the guy that wrote much of the Constitution, and authored the Declaration of Independence, as well as President of the USA.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

Thank goodness the bible was removed from public schools, and that equality, freedom, liberty are used instead of myth and faith.

It is no accident that the technological explosion of the 20th and 21st century happened as the decline of religion also happened.

Believe what you wish to, in your home and church, but don’t attempt to let your flat earth / junk “science” invade the public school system, or civil laws.

What a piece of work Dan Severson is–dishonest and willfully ignorant.

Not exactly a good fit for public service.

Severson’s right. There’s no mention of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment bans the government from establishing a state religion, like the Church of England. That’s all. The author of this piece is the ignorant one.

The only historical reference to “separation of church and state” came in a letter Jefferson wrote to a constituent. It’s not in the law.

When the congress stops the practice of opening each session with a prayer led by a member of the clergy, you rubes may be on to something.

@Dennis – Read my comment above, it was in a letter , and something Jefferson used to help pass the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Congress should stop opening up sessions with religious worship, it is not the place of government to take the place of religion, nor use religion / worship / magic / mumbo jumbo in any way. It is CIVIL, not religious in nature.

Ken

Everyone:

If you want real education about the history and origin of the separation between the State and churches go here:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

You will learn a lot, and it is not the garbage of the so called “wall builders” who try to revise history toward their bigoted dreams.

@ Tim,

Tim says: “if teaching bible in public schools is against this cause then so is the teaching of evolution, which is clearly a religious idea from the beginning of time.”

And: “Here is the new book by the leading scientist: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design”

Sorry Tim, it’s only in the eyes of a small group of conservative Christians that evolution is considered “religion”. Getting the flu shot means you’re accepting evolution as science. If you consider evolution “religion” then don’t get shot and go with “prayer” instead.

Stephen Meyer is a member of the Discovery Institute, the leading propoganda organization for “intelligent design”. His book has been throughly discredited by actual biologists, which they quite handily as Meyer is not an actual biologist.

That the phrase “separation of church and state” was used in a letter instead of the text of the Constitution doesn’t negate it. It contradicts the frequent conservative assertion that the phrase was invented in the 20th century. I’ll give you this Dennis, at least you admitted the phrase is as old as the Constitution. Now if only you’d recognize that the First Amendment was the application of the framers’ intention to separate church and state. It’s not like you could pick any religion, as long as it was some sort of Christian. They addressed non-Christians in the debates over the Bill of Rights.

Hey Dan Serverson, “The question I’d like to ask the Supreme Court is what was it that you based your ruling on?” Here’s a thought: read the ruling.

Wow what an ignoramus. not qualified for a the position of Secretary of State.

Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina and Tennessee all denied the ability to hold public office to members of the clergy with laws such as the following from the New York 1777 Constitution:

XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.

This definitely indicates the degrees to which the separation of Church and State was taken seriously, even at the state level prior to the signing of the federal Constitution.

If the U.S. Government established an official religion, what would they do?

Allow local government entities to require everyone in public school to pray to a particular god, while “allowing” those of other religions to “step into the hall” (separate themselves) while group prayer is recited?

Allow local government officials to require students in public school to study a religious text, say, one called the Bible? But they wouldn’t allow classroom study of other texts, such as the Koran?

Make it clear through public policy, and personal behavior and statements by public officials, that only a particular religion, say, Christianity, was acceptable?

Would government officials promulgate that other religions are evil, or myths?

Would government officials publicly state that membership in a particular religious group is a litmus test for election to office?

Would government officials pass resolutions stating that the country was “a Christian nation”?

Interesting how the same things our courts have found unconstitutional are the very things that government would do if it passed a law establishing an official religion.

First, Kiffmeyer, and, now this guy Severson, why can’t the republican party find a decent candidate for this office? I listened to Ritchie and Severson debate today on MPR, all Severson could talk about was all of the “voter fraud” that exists. Well, Ritchie pointed out that Coleman”s lawyers sure could not find it. Voter “fraud” is like the weapons of mass destruction that another republican foisted on the voters. It sounds plausible, until you actually try to find it.

Just ask the Taliban!

Damn,It’s a shame that stupidity isn’t a capital offense,because if it was a great many of these republicans (aka teabaggers) would be on death row.Whew!!This is scary,scary,very scary.

Mark Ritchie was one of several ACORN Sec.of State candidates who were placed into office around the country for the purpose of facilitating the organized election fraud in the 2008 election.

They did it by opposing any attempts to check voter ID at the polls. They did it by arranging for thousands of phantom ballots to appear after the closing of the polls in the event of a close democrat loss (Franken had fewer votes than Coleman when the polls closed). They did it by picking and choosing which absentee ballots would be counted and which ones wouldn’t, based on whether the ballots were from a tradionally republican or democrat precinct.

Mark Ritchie was affiliated with ACORN, an organization assembled for the sole purpose of controlling elections in favor of the democrats. For that reason alone, people should vote for his opponent, even if that opponent was a one-eyed yellow dog.

“This definitely indicates the degrees to which the separation of Church and State was taken seriously, even at the state level prior to the signing of the federal Constitution.”

Oh really? Then how do you explain the members of the clergy who were also members of Congress, including two catholic priests Father Drinan and Father Cornell?

smile

If the U.S. Government established an official religion, what would they do?
—————————————–openly gay———————————————
And all that is Humanly possible towards death and distruction.

Can any one help me to understand why The President is putting all of his Strength
towards a sub-human cause, that is gay-rights.

The compromise, is it the giving away of us money to buy Votes for the repeal of dont ask?
Who puts that much into gay except gay.

had we put that much into a Public Option, then we would still be on top? Yes Or No?
Pastor@unitedstateschurch.org

Rufus, the Troll.

Lose the insults and stupidity and try facts. Bigotry and prejudice are poor ways to make arguments for your case. It shows you have nothing.

Take your trolling prejudice and hatred to someplace like “Free Republic” where you’ll be right at home.

Dennis,

Tell us which version of religion we should make the “official” religion of the United States? Should it be Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon? Which set of commandments should be made law and enforced by the power of government?

There is a reason for the bumper sticker that says: “The last time we mixed religion and state people got burned at the stake.”

Dennis,

The “Minnesota Majority” guys lists that were supposed to show that Minnesota elections are “corrupt”, had half their list was shown to be wrong by Ramsey County.

I’m amazed that people who consider government too big, want official ID’s to vote. One would think that small government people would not want government to have that kind of information.

Read the oath at the top of the roster the next time you vote, it’s what the law is about.

Do you have any actual facts to back up your accusations? Provide them or quit insulting people without facts.

Its so funny how much these tea-bagger wing nuts sound like the radical muslims in Iran. Peas in a pod.

Dennis,

Your theory about Ritchie and ACORN has about as much credibility as the lunacy of the 9/11 “Truth” movement.

And, while I’m at it, nowhere in the Constitution is your god mentioned, or Jesus, or The Family[TM], or marriage being limited to heterosexuals, or capitalism, or “family values.”

The Constitution is a thoroughly godless and secular document, intended to be kept sufficiently open ended so as to change with the changes of society.

None! That’s the point. The “establishment clause” prevents the establishment of a state religion. It says that the people get to decide which religion to practice and the state does not.

It doesn’t mean that the state bans all religion from the public square, just the opposite! When the founders who came here from Europe to escape religious persecution, they wanted to create a government that did not force people to join a new world version of the “Church of England.” That’s what the establishment clause is all about.

Some people have taken the phrase “separation of church and state” and “the establishment clause” to mean that there shall be no religious practice in the public square when it doesn’t mean that at all. It simply means the government cannot force you to attend a specific, state-sponsored church.

Sorry, my last comments were directed at Scott’s “Tell us which version of religion we should make the “official” religion of the United States?” remarks.

“I’m amazed that people who consider government too big, want official ID’s to vote. One would think that small government people would not want government to have that kind of information.”

Because those who believe in a representative form of government want that government decided by people who are legally eligible to vote. Given that the party currently in power believes it has the right to tax my labor and confiscate my wealth, it’s the least they could do.

smile

dear Scott:

Are you part of the Media?

rufus
pastor@unitedstateschurch.org

Dennis,

“Because those who believe in a representative form of government want that government decided by people who are legally eligible to vote. Given that the party currently in power believes it has the right to tax my labor and confiscate my wealth, it’s the least they could do.”

That is what the process in place does. It’s the legislatures of each state that decide, beyond the amendment about 18 year old’s, who gets to vote in each state. Rules are set about when your registration can be considered valid. Remember when the Constitution was set up, only propertied males could vote.

What standards should be used to determine what type of ID should be valid? What other documentation should be used to validate your “photo id’s”? Should that documentation be kept on file? These are questions that will need to be answered.

Photo ID’s aren’t the solution to a problem that barely exists.

Question for you, Dennis. Do you consider Florida’s 2000 presidential election to be correct result or was it stolen?

Rufus,

Why would that be important?

Tim wrote: “Severson is awesome. He is the only candidate that is not afraid to tell the public the truth”
**********************************
Now if only he new the truth.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution is very specific. Government has no right to establish a national religion or prohibit the practice of any religion among the citizens in this country. Article V states clearly that no religious affiliation is required to run for public office. Those who want to change these things don’t know what is in the Constitution and know very little about our country’s history. They just go with what they “think” or “believe” rather than what the law says as contained in the Constitution, and they are very dangerous individuals.

As a Christian, I understand fully that the Bible teaches free will and doesn’t endorse forcing anyone to become a Christian. Everyone is responsible for his/her own soul. Jesus told his disciples that if they weren’t welcomed in a particular town/region not to fight, but to shake the dust off their feet and move on to another town/region. This tendency of some Christians to force their religion upon others is not supported by the Scripture.

More of these Christians need to really read their Bible and understand what it teaches rather than trying to subvert its meaning to their desires/demands. I’m sick and tired of some Christians b@$t@*ding Christianity to serve not God’s, but man’s purposes. It’s not only sacrilegious, it’s blasphemous. We now have Christians in this country who have abandoned key principles of Christianity to promote their own agendas. They discriminate, hate, lie, steal, act in unethical and immoral ways, embrace violence,etc., without a second thought for what Jesus would have them do. This has had a negative impact on drawing people to Christ since potential converts see Christians behaving in these ways and ask themselves, “Why should I listen to them when they do the opposite of what they say they believe?”

***b@$t@*dizing***

Dennis wrote:
“When the founders who came here from Europe to escape religious persecution, they wanted to create a government that did not force people to join a new world version of the “Church of England.”

Sort of true, Dennis. In the case of the Puritans, they wanted a government that would force people to join the PURITAN church. And they created it. Plymouth was a totalitarian religious state.

Plymouth had nothing to do with “religious freedom”. The Puritans persecuted anyone who did not practice THEIR official religion. Just read about what the Puritans did to Roger Williams and to Thomas Morton.

The truth is that religious bigots who were persecuted in their home country came here so they could be the ones doing the persecuting. The historical record on this is irrefutable.

Delegates writing the Constitution were well aware of the corrosive nature of religion when forced upon others. Plymouth was a Taliban-like state. They invaded other colonies and burned them to the ground. The purpose of the establishment clause was to prevent the very thing that virtually every religion wants to do- impose its beliefs on others through social pressure and, if possible, through law.

people like Dennis and Tim and the other right-wingers need to remember that George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson – our founding fathers – were born here and were second or third generation Americans.

Dennis – “Mark Ritchie was one of several ACORN Sec.of State candidates who were placed into office around the country for the purpose of facilitating the organized election fraud in the 2008 election.”

Really? Again – where’s your proof – Still waiting for you to explain how Al Franken is a draft dodger and Cheney, Bush or others aren’t.

I think too many of you got your history from non-historians like Howard Zinn.
The concept that most of our founding fathers were not Christian has been perpetrated by Left-wing book-peddlers who wish to re-write history to suit their agenda. One only has to take a brief tour of the Smithsonian’s exhibit on the history of the White House to see biblical quotes inscribed on the mantels of people like John Adams. These are men who signed a document that states peoples’ rights are “endowed by their Creator.” The evidence of God’s presence in their lives is ubiquitous for anyone that examines it with an unbiased eye.
Jefferson for example was not, as many erroneously insist, an “Atheist.” Nor was Franklin. ( Note that I said “Franklin” not “Franken,” whose biggest sin isn’t Atheism, but being a comedian that is actually incapable of being funny.)
I am not a particularly religious person so I don’t have a dog in this fight except the “irrefutable” historical record the Left keeps peddling. (“Irrefutable” by whom? Your anti-Colonial pseudo-Marxist professors that see White Imperialist Oppression everywhere they look? ) History just isn’t that simple, folks. It can’t be judged by 21st
Century standards, yet it continues to be. Particularly in the mutant offspring of ‘Sixties
ideology re-packaged and peddled to young people as “Progressive.”
Funny, I don’t see the Left getting their undies in a bundle about Muslims wanting to establish prayer rooms in schools ,getting their own bathrooms for foot-washing, or establishing segregated swimming areas. (Oh, wait–if we object in that case we’re just being “insensitive,” not protecting the Constitution. My bad.)
It is correct that the Establishment clause only prohibits the state from establishing one religion as a national religion. Our laws have been informed by religion (specifically Judeo-Christian religion, i.e. the Ten Commandments) whether anyone likes that or not.
As for “imposing beliefs through social pressure”, I have to laugh. The Left has a religion, too, and It’s Multi-culturalism with a spaghetti-spined bow to Political Correctness. So far I see more laws established trying to socially engineer society from the Left, not the right.( If I hear any more from Democrats about “fairness” and “social justice” as the basis for new legislation I might actually vomit. )
As for the Franken election being a fraud, now THOSE are facts that are “irrefutable.” If any of Stuart Smalley’s defenders understood the statistical impossibility of “finding” last-minute votes for Franken in the proportions that were reported It would be a moot point—but these specimens are long on emotion and very short on critical thinking. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, however, to see that having about six thousand more votes than there are voters is a bit more than sloppy tallying.
Ironically, it will be a cold day in Hell before Progressives stop trying to alter everyone’s beliefs through “social pressure” and stop painting anyone with strong religious views as a “bigot.” ( Or anyone who questions their agenda a “racist.”) The zealotry of the Left is rooted in the deeply held (yet fallacious) belief in their position at the top of the ethical high ground. In fact, it’s possibly why they’re’so collectively secular–I mean, what could any God teach them that they don’t already know? Conservatives think they have better ideas. Progressives think they’re better people.
In the end, most of the Left will just continue to spread the Gospel of George Soros– under the smug delusion that they think for themselves.

There is no such thing as a “Christian base of liberty”. There isn’t one single thing in our Constitution that can be found anywhere in the Bible. The Constitution is all about civil rights. Not one of the so-called conservative, so-called American so-called Christians can point to one single Bible verse that says anything about liberty, religious freedom, or civil rights. Not one can show you where the Constitution expresses “Christian values”. If they could, they would have done so by now. Instead all they can do is keep repeating the lie that “we’re a Christian nation”. There is no such thing.

The ‘VoterID’ cry just doesn’t play. I would encourage anyone who doubts the efficacy of our system of elections to serve as an election official. I believe you would find out quickly that the system works well to prevent fraud or cheating on anyone’s part.

You have to provide ID when you register to vote. You are then enrolled in a roster of voters for your precinct. When you arrive at the polls you identify yourself (name and address) to election officials who locate you in the roster. You may be asked to confirm your DOB, and sign. Same-day registration and “vouching”, while controversial to some, increase voter participation. Many see this as a good thing. In any case, neither have been subject to more than isolated abuse. There is no conspiracy.

The assertion by Rep Severson and others (Dennis 930pm) that our elections are beset by folks voting who are ineligible to do so (voter fraud) is without basis in fact. Voter fraud is vanishingly rare, to the point of being imaginary. Registration fraud is another matter, nearly as rare, but if those registrations are not voted, then they become meaningless.

Severson is a decent man, but he clearly lacks an understanding of law and his view of the office of SoS is utterly political, to be used for the benefit of his party, to depress registration and turnout, which, not coincidentally, helps the GOP. The real problem with our election system is too few people voting, not too many. Severson, Emmer, and the rest know this.

This train we’re on is going in one direction: the diminishment of power of white voters as a bloc of the electorate. The GOP would do well to tailor their message and platform to new demographic realities, and, I don’t know, win some new voters. But that might prove an existential impossibility. We’ll see.

“The GOP would do well to tailor their message and platform to new demographic realities, and, I don’t know, win some new voters. But that might prove an existential impossibility. We’ll see.”

They always have. It’s never been the belief of conservatives that the principles of freedom, constitutional government, the rights to private property, the right to defend yourself. etc. were limited to certain gender or ethnic groups.

To believe that african americans or hispanics aren’t interested in being free men is racist at its core.

Dan Severenson must also be calling for the abolition of the US Air Force, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation and regulations, paper money, any use of “suspect classes” to determine discrimination, and a host of other concepts uniformly acknowledged as being authorized by or required under the US Constitution.

Like many who say their “literal interpretation” of the Bible or the Constitution is divinely inspired, he asks us to throw away all other sources and rely only upon him (or those who agree with him.)

And to credit the Christian religion as the source of American liberty is to ignore pretty much the entire history of the dominant sects of Chrisitanity that existed pre-enlightenment – pre-Age-of-Reason.

We are predominantly a nation of Christians (especially when you add up all the various denominations and sects who would never, could never agree on even the wording of a national prayer, to say nothing of a religious Constitution or official State religion – though I would pay money to see those debates were they to be scheduled.)

That does not make us a Christian Nation in the way Iran is an Islamic Republic. It is not, nor would any American who wishes to stay true to the values and principles on which this nation was founded.

Our nation, our government and laws, as intended by the founders of our nation and the drafters of our Constitution, are decidedly secular, aggressively neutral, and are protective of individuals rights to believe or not believe as we choose.

Dennis,

I’m going to refer to the “Southern strategy” of the GOP as a conscious, concerted effort NOT to win new, ie, minority voters, but to consolidate the “old”, ie, white voters. The breakdown of the GOP’s voting constituency confirms it is whiter and more male than the average voter. And getting more so while demography goes the other way–what gives? Is this some sort of Crazy Ivan by the GOP?

You and I are fortunate to share the same principles of freedom, and enjoy the same rights. In the essential matter of everyone’s legal access to the ballot in order to exercise those rights, in the race for Minnesota SoS, you are better served by the democrat in the race. And that is generally the case, no matter your skin color.

Lisa,

Lisa says: “As for the Franken election being a fraud, now THOSE are facts that are “irrefutable.” If any of Stuart Smalley’s defenders understood the statistical impossibility of “finding” last-minute votes for Franken in the proportions that were reported It would be a moot point—but these specimens are long on emotion and very short on critical thinking. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, however, to see that having about six thousand more votes than there are voters is a bit more than sloppy tallying.”

The Franken/Coleman recount was streamed on line throughout the whole process, just where is this “6000″ number coming from? Do you have facts and sources to back it up?

Because that is totally a fabrication. Even though I’m a fully vetted or is that paid (I get confused on my status) Soro’s Zombie (TM pending), it seems to be only the right wing that is claiming the election of Franken was a fraud, This recount was done painstakingly and thoroughly.

Now if it’s fraudulent elections you’re looking for, let’s talk about Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Wait, what’s that sound I’m hearing from the right, oh yeah silence.

Lisa,

I wrote “Plymouth had nothing to do with “religious freedom”. The Puritans persecuted anyone who did not practice THEIR official religion. Just read about what the Puritans did to Roger Williams and to Thomas Morton.

The truth is that religious bigots who were persecuted in their home country came here so they could be the ones doing the persecuting. The historical record on this is irrefutable.”

Go ahead. Post evidence that refutes that Plymouth Colony persecuted those that did not practice their official religion. I look forward to seeing the references you cite.

Here’s why Mr. Severson and his lot are a threat to the peace and tranquility of the United States. This was written by that notorious rabble rouser, Justice Hugo Black, as part of the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1):

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to [330 U.S. 1, 9] maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them. 5

These practices of the old world were transplanted to and began to thrive in the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or non-believers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of [330 U.S. 1, 10] this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. 7 And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes8 to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters. [330 U.S. 1, 11] These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. The imposition of taxes to pay ministers’ salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights’ provisions embracing religious liberty. But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention, p ovided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

Brad Brandon identified the problem with theocracy at about the 5:38 mark, when he referred to terms like “immovable” and “steadfast” with regard to religion. He said that “righteousness is not subjective”, and I agree.

Democracy lives in a world of negotiation and compromise, that willingness to make trade-offs in order to get along with those who disagree. To do otherwise, to have one side set the terms without consideration for other views, is dictatorship and tyranny.

It is the very intractability of the faithful that makes their cause incompatible with democracy. That is why there is a different name for it: Theocracy. There are those who think we should be a theocracy, with their religion in charge. They do not want to “take back” America, they want to take it over, change it into something else.

The Founding Fathers were mostly men of faith. Of several faiths. And being men of faith, they knew they knew the power that faith could hold over individuals and the degree to which it could influence government. As they designed our government, they drew from the examples of other nations and the opinions of many philosophers of the time.

They chose to build a nation that embraced freedom of religion, knowing that this could only transpire if government and religion were kept separate. Freedom of religion must apply equally to all or it is not truly a freedom. Once the religious doctrine of a single belief system is legislated into law, once the freedoms become unequal, that freedom becomes an illusion.

One of the people that the Founders listened to was John Locke, who wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration”.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

He considered it necessary to distinguish between the business of civil government and that of religion, and to set boundaries between the one and the other. Otherwise, there can be no end to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concern for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the “commonwealth.”

Separation of Church and State is necessary for the continuation of our democracy.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Deriving Their Just Powers From The Consent Of The Governed. NOT The Will Of God. NOT the Lords of Aristocracy. This country was founded on the belief that citizens, We The People, working together, could organize their own lives and affairs without Kings, or Lords, or Bishops. This was the change that made this country so different. So desirable. So successful. They called it “The Great Experiment.”

While most founding fathers were Christians, some, like Paine, were not. Most, like Jefferson, went out of their way to remove any Christian references from law and documents and strongly supported the separation of church and state. Perhaps conservatives and teabaggers should bother to actually read a few history books instead of simply labeling books as leftist because they do not support their misconceptions.

What is odd is that we are bothering to have this discussion when the very first amendment to the US Constitution makes this very point. Many conservatives need to also read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The ignorance of US conservatives is getting very hard to take.

It is refreshing to see some people actually do take time to read, investigate, and think.

Imagine, no religion…… one of the most liberating, peaceful concepts I can think of….and likely the only real hope for the planet and humankind…..

There are theocracies all over the world you bible-thumping idiots can go live in if you choose. There is not an effectively educated person in the world that interprets the constitution the way this meathead does. Pray all you want to, it won’t change the facts.

Because of this bizarre religious litmus test that all politicians in the U.S. are subjected to, even secular and agnostic candidates can’t tell the truth about how they feel about religion. The fact of the matter as most modern educated people see it is that the Holy Bible is a kluged-together series of documents that were written by men and full of superstition and children’s tales. Don’t try to shove this bullshit down everyone else’s throats because you’re too fearful to live in this world without a holy ghost to look after you.

Hmm. Me thinks the best argument to throw back at these tea idiots then is:

‘It doesn’t say in the Constitution that you have the right to bear arms except against foreign militia’ either…

You can’t have it both ways.

So which kind of Christian nation……….Baptist, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Shaker…………?

“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

Part of a treaty that the Senate voted in favour of, on June 7, 1797. 23 of the 32 sitting senators were present.

The vote was unanimous.

I think the second president of the USA, John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, the person who sent this treaty to the Senate for approval, might just possibly know a bit more about the Founding of the USA than candidate Severson.

Dennis- actually, even though the fourteenth amendment was not specifically designed for the purpose, it did make states liable to the rules set forth by congress. Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights. INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…. Get your facts straight. That’s why the subsequent rulings went in favor or ‘separation of church and state’ coined by Jefferson. the states cannot make any laws either. It does say that in the amendments if you read them all very carefully, and in the session of the Senate mentioned by Zoe, and in the subsequent rulings by Supreme Court judges.
Also, as I am a former resident of Minnesota, and actually voted there, I can tell you that you are completely ignorant. They did check to make sure you are who you say you are. I Voted, and not for Al! No one made any attempt to stop me from voting, to change my vote or any other such illegal behavior. Conspiracy theorist much?
It’s not because I’m anti religion either. I don’t care if they have religions in schools, however I DO have a problem with any particular faith being taught as above/more correct/more acceptable than any other. If you want to open that can of worms, then fine, have all religions being taught in that school then. Despite what you might think not all science is ‘against god.’ The scientists just can not confirm it as the scientific process can not be used to prove the existence of god. Whether or not evolution has holes in it or not, there is a scientific method to test this. There is no method to proving god, that is why it is called faith. Also, note when i say ‘god’ I mean that in the ambiguous sense (as did most of the founders), not a Christian god. I don’t care if people are atheist, satanist, christian, jewish or whatever the case may be. This post is not meant to be in offense to any atheists. I have family that is Christian, I have family that is atheist. What irritates me the most is seeing one side or the other bashing the other. You believe there is no god, they believe there is. If they MUST have religion in the classroom, include the flying spaghetti monster then.

Whats makes us different than the Terr_orists groups we fight? We have laws that rule the land and a justice system. They have religious views and are judged by how strong or weak these views are lived by. Their justice system_?_men wearing turbins.
Similarities to these extreme right groups demanding religion be in all our lives by force. So I refuse this for myself and ,my children, they will enforse their beliefs upon me and mine? Our founding fathers warned us about these people and also about the Industrial complex war machine. We had better listen as these extreme righties would love to have their way with us, only which of the many far fetched religions would win as a power struggle amonst them would last for years.

I am sorry but I have to agree with Severson: He added, “You simply cannot continue a nation as America without that Christian base of liberty.”

This country was built on “IN GOD WE TRUST” The Christian words that are written on our curancy, on the top or our state building and should be displayer proudly where it has been since the beginning; not on the belief of other countries. We have freedom of religion but it no longer feels free when we are told to take the Bible out of public buildings. Can not say the pledge of alligiance in our schools because it may offend some one, Can no longer Celebrate Christma by saying Merry Christmas It must be happy holidays.
NO!!!! You came here and you have the right to celebrate in your way you desire. We do not force you to participate so, Why do you come here and change our ways and beleifs.
I am scared of these Muslums and people form all the other countries that are coming over here and purchasing all our businesses, Not having to pay taxes laughing at us like stupid americans. What the hell are we doing if not giving them the powe to take our beliefs, our religion and our country away from us all in the name of money………….. It sure is no longer freedom!!! If you don’t like how we do things in america go back home where you had it so much better. We were doing so much better and people were happier with out you.

Jane,
So which version of Christianity should be the “official” one that gets the special treatment? Catholic, Lutheran, Wisconsin Synod Lutheran? Do we not teach science and start teaching “creationism”? Do we say that those who do not follow the “proper” version of Christianity are treated as 2nd class citiizens?

It’s the questions above that make the separation of church and state an important issue and why Severson is wrong. No one religion should have priority.

As for your last paragraph it is just ignorant racism and stupidity.

@Jane

The motto “In God We Trust” was not seen before 1864 and not official until the early years of the Cold War (it was ratified in 1956), in the same burst of overblown religiosity that added “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Before 1864, it appeared primarily in the rarely-sung fourth verse of the Star-Spangled Banner, which was written by a private citizen and was merely one of many patriotic songs used as a national anthem in various contexts, along with “Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean” and “Hail! Columbia.” The motto of the United States until 1956 was “E Pluribus Unum” (From Many, One). E Pluribus Unum was adopted as part of the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, and approved for use on currency in 1795!

[...] Severson, Republican candidate for Missouri secretary of state, said last week: “Quite often you hear people say, ‘What about separation of church and state?’ [...]

This “there-is-no-clause-in-the-Constitution-supporting-separation-of-church-and-state” argument is another “dog whistle” issue designed to alert the American Taliban supporters of the Religious Right that the candidate is a true believer. This fallacious argument is reverberating around the Internet this election cycle. Calling all sane, intelligent voters: VOTE and help get out the vote so these wackos do not get elected!

Dennis and Lisa desire a public school, a public square, our public commons to be the place where their religion has top billing.

I’m an atheist and i don’t want either of their thoughts, beliefs, commandments cluttering up our public spaces, any more than my personal beliefs should be plastered onto the courthouse wall.

Religion flourishes with the freedom of religion we have in the US. The “christian nation” crowd errs when they think things will be better off if some Christians push their beliefs on us all. Not.

Pray your hearts out in private. When we join together in the public sphere, you restrain expression of your beliefs, and i’ll restrain from my critical review of those same beliefs

You (mill) are an atheist. You belive in nothing. that Nobody took nothing and created all that you know. What in this world has no purpose? What in this world is not connected to something else? The belief of nothing is still a belief. So why does the country that i live in have to go along with your belief and not mine. Your asking me to abide by your beliefs in public, that i would show the world that i belive in nothing like you. So asking me to be silent of my beliefs, and to honor your beliefs is as bad as me asking you to honor my beliefs and silence yours. So i suggest that i will be respectfull of you and your beliefs, and you be respectfull of mine. And nobody has to be silent. The goverment should br an image of its people. and if the majority want to honor Christ, than it should reflect that. there is no way to please all people. thats why it just takes a majority. So good luck to you and your……..nobody. I’m not worried cause i have someone on my side. even if you win this battle, i have already won the war. I pray you find something more than nothing to fill your life.

Shane,

Atheism is not about nothing. It is about NOT believing in a nothing. I’m sure your comfortable believing in a fantasy after death. Your religious programming (brainwashing) shaped you that way. I’m comfortable believing in nothing after death. I am more concerned about the here and now.

Human ethics are derived from experience, not from religious moralizing.
I was raised a cathaholic. All the basic ‘teachings’ are in the appostles creeks (screed). I bet you believe as you were brainwashed: “I believe in god the father almightly, creator of heaven and earth ( no mention of other planets), and in jesus christ, his only son, our lord, who was conceived of the virgin mary (other gods had similar beginnings)…:

I can’t go on, it’s too insidious. Remember the video clips of the taliban ‘teaching’ young children their religion. Likewise, I was ‘taught’ memorization of this religious crap in 1st grade, then math and some logic in 2nd grade. I didn’t have a chance, and neither did you. There are many recovering catholics like me. We see what was done to us and have moved on to become the atheists we were born as. Religion is the meme that enslaves. Do an internet search on brainwashing for starters.

And Dennis, try real hard to use that brain of yours.

Shane, when a person says s/he is an atheist, it means that s/he has come to the conclusion that there is no such a thing as “God” or “Allah” or some such supernatural power. This conclusion does not carry with it any of the trappings of organized religion nor does it obligate the atheist to force his conclusion on others nor does it rob the atheist of possessing a set of morals. Matter of fact, the atheist is far more likely to take full responsibility for his or her words and actions unlike many unethical people of faith who hide behind their religion based on a non-existant entity. Given this context, what you just said is just, well, nothing. Really.

If I did not care, it would be a real crack up.
One tries to “correct” Severson regarding separation of church and state & says “get your history strait”, then points out it doesn’t exist and quotes the letter that referenced it written by Jefferson. A letter to a friend, not the constitution.

Christians, based in God’s Word, escaped the Religious garbage, warring it out, in their own country. (ie Lutheran vs Catholic, etc) Denomination = Divided Nation.

Democracy did not give you free choice, God, your creator did. God has left this world to the children of men. You can reject Him, your choice.
You can even call it educated, to make yourself feel better.

The Church is responsible for Hospitals, ending genocide in many places and common values (Christian values).

Do as you please. I pray that a Christian will have a heart for you and love you enough to bring you the Gospel. Muslims can kill the infidel, if they like, they will only send them to heaven, where they can pray for their deliverance. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

You can believe in evolution and the betterment of the species. Nazi’s did.

Make room for Christ and His word.
Matthew said it best in Chapter 7.
5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Yes, make sure you do not have a plank in your eye, SO YOU CAN HELP YOUR BROTHER REMOVE THE SPECK.
….if they won’t receive it, pray for them & move to the next opportunity.
Don’t throw your pearls before swine.

BUT if you can plant a seed, and Pray for it, God cannot lie….
Matthew continued, 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

ASK, SEEK & KNOCK

Great job Severson!
Keep them talking about GOD!
May everything you put your hands to, prosper & succeed.

Jeff Giacomini
MN

Jeff, thanks for more illustrations why people like Mr. Severson should not be allowed in public office.

Bill Marshall
Comment posted October 19, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Great, just the perfect person for a critical job like Secretary of State — ignorant of even the most basic concepts of the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We were NOT founded as a Christian nation. The Founders were as afraid of religion and religious preference as they were of kings and monarchs. In fact, most of the Founders were Deists.

This is beyond just being stupid…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Seperation of church and state are 2 different things

Religious people are funny, they conveniently quote scriptures that sort of fit, they take shots at reason and education and anything they or anyone else can’t explain is suddenly proof there is a god. Your book is made up, edited by kings to fit their needs and sold to the people to keep them in check. Also nice is that Christians then actually have the gall to call Muslims violent, read your own book, I have, read history where Christians murdered in the name of god for centuries. Keep building a better religion or taking your scripture out of context to make your week pathetic points, most of you are hypocrites and not nice people. I have no proof of god, neither do you, but if god does exist, especially in the way you say it does, then your god is embarrassed and ashamed of you!

Wow what an ignorant elitist thing to say. No we are not a Christian nation many of us are jews, buddhists and muslims. I hope he does not get the support. We dont need any more narrow minded ignorant politicians. We have enough already. It is why we are in the state we are in.

So no one ever told these people that the Founding Fathers were Deist and explicitly anti-church, huh?
That first sentence of the First Amendment specifically throws out the idea that America is a “Christian nation”. That statement specifically says we are not. John Adams himself said that we are no more a christian nation than we are a muslim nation.

[...] Birkey of The Minnesota Independent reports: “Quite often you hear people say, ‘What about separation of church and state?’ [...]

[...] at that, who wanted a Christian Nation and the separation of Church and State is nothing more than Liberal fanciness. In fact, you may remember, this all started because T. Jefferson was [...]