Why those who quote "separation" are wrong.

The purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect Americans from religion, it was to protect religion from government intrusion. This “understanding” is in full and obvious accord with the raison d’etre of the Bill of Rights to limit the federal government’s power and thereby secure the freedom of individuals and the rights of the states. The Bill of Rights was a declaration of what the federal government could not do.

TerryRC wrote:Why should I realize that, because you say so? Sorry, I don’t see it that way.

I doubt you would see it that way if most of your politicians were muslim instead of christian.

If you bring the practice of religion into government, you are sanctioning that/those religions, whether officially or unofficially.

People like Jefferson and Paine realized this a long time ago.

Yes, it would have been impossible for these God-fearing men to have deliberately built a “Wall of Separation” between church and state. Here is how the phrase and eventually the concept of this “wall of separation” originated.

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. They were alarmed about a rumor. Was a national denomination soon to be established? Jefferson responded by letter on January 1, 1802, assuring them that there was no basis to the rumor. He said, “I contemplate with solemn 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 and State.”

The Danbury Baptists were apparently satisfied. They understood the “wall” to be one-directional, protecting them and other churches from possible discrimination and harm by means of a “governmental-favored denomination” status. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s eight-word phrase, “a wall of separation between Church and State,” has become the defining metaphor for today’s misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

TerryRC wrote:As for JK Rowling not receiving a Presidential Medal of Freedom, why should she? And how is her being denied one our government sanctioning one form of religion over another?

She was as deserving of that honor as the other authors that received it. She didn't get it because of some prejudiced, ignorant christians that had some power.

Wait. That may not be accurate. She may not of received the honor because some politicians didn't want to lose the support of prejudiced, ignorant christians.

TerryRC wrote:You’re not showing examples of government sponsored religion TC

We shouldn't see many because we have groups that are ever vigilant in their mission to keep people from attempting to legislate their religious beliefs. You can find MANY examples of people trying to make laws based upon their ideas of "morality".

Gay marriage bans are a fine example.

Keep your religion out of my government and I'll keep my government out of your religion.

Nothing could be more simple.