Where is your source that separation of church and state was meant to keep State out of Church. BESIDES opinion pieces on the matter on conservative websites. Give me historical basis. The politics of the 1770s hardly suggest that protecting ANYTHING from the church in America was any sort of concern of the time. And if you don't believe me, I have textual proof. Check out the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

If you don't believe this, have a link to an image of the document

And the British American colonies were primarily protestants fleeing Catholic-controlled Britain. You know? the ones who REJECT the Pope? This country was not founded by 'Christians' as you claim. Most of the founding fathers were Freemasons and followers of deism.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, make you question your faith, or attack you. I just want to... make you aware that some of what you are saying is factually wrong. That's not subjective, faith-based, or a matter of opinion. That's very dangerous. You are not preserving the true history of the United States of America. You are being as uncanon as a slash-fic writer who thinks that men can become pregnant and deliver a baby to term in two weeks time is.

It's ok to like slash, a pairing, or some other fandom subset. Nobody should stone you to death for what you believe.

Just please. Do NOT mess up US historical canon.

DO NOT DO IT. You look as bad as somebody who thinks that Superman and Lex Luthor are canonical butt buddies when you do it. You are being fundamentally incorrect.

So don't get mad when other people jump down your throat. Here at the PPC we get mad at people who think fundamentally wrong things about canons.

Why shouldn't other people be allowed get mad at those who believe wrong things about other canons... specifically the canon of the real world?

Your religious beliefs and opinions aren't wrong or worthy of attack. But the facts you put up to back them up are. In the same way somebody who claims the moon landing never happened, they're just... wrong. :|

Thomas Jefferson spoke of a "wall of separation" between church and state. There is no such thing as a one-way wall. (Well, okay, in HQ there might be, but I'm talking Euclidean geometry here. ;P) Religion's chocolate is meant to stay out of the state's peanut butter and the state must in turn keep its peanut butter out of religion's chocolate.

Also, the Founding Fathers were mainly deists.

The United States has absolutely no language in its founding documents that explicitly states that it is a Christian nation. Ergo, any faith-based argument for laws in the United States is inherently unconstitutional, as stated in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine.]

The words "an establishment of religion" do not just mean "am institution of faith", they mean "establishing a state religion". To quote Barry Goldwater (four words I thought I would never type, by the by), "You can't legislate morality."

While I am not QUILTBAG myself, I'm certainly QUILTBAG-friendly, and I feel that I must defend the honor of Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams et al. wherever possible.

Speaking of whom, a little food for thought:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov't. land for churches

Oh, oh, and my personal favorite:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

The same thing could apply to QUILTBAG rights. Unless you are in the affected group, the existence or lack thereof of marriage rights for people who aren't "insert-tab-A-into-slot-B" neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

One more thing as well - the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate by John Adams and ratified in 1797, contains this interesting clause:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - right there in writing.

As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But if you are going to construct an argument on why you believe that your beliefs should be injected into the political discourse of the United States, kindly refrain from building your arguments on a foundation of false data.

Also, genuinely curious - what passages are you using to justify homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God, and why do you believe religion ought to affect the laws? Would you feel the same way if the Founders were, say, Druids?

Speaking as someone who was bullied into silence by people who used the same reasoning as you, because I admitted feelings to my best friend (who happened to be female like myself), I have to honestly say it hurts.

It hurts to know that it wasn't just some group of overzealous teenagers, telling me I wasn't right in the head or not human or any number of names that I won't list here, but to know it's someone within a community I frequent and have ties to?

Why should marriage between two happy people who wish to be together be exclusive? Why should it be okay for people like say, Newt Gingrich or Britney Spears be allowed to have shotgun marriages and divorces, but Joe and Steve who have been faithful to each other for 20+ years, and have been living together can't. As such, they are denied rights married couples have, such as hospital visitation, and so on.

Call me a socialist, but to deny equal rights to everyone just because some of the population happens to love someone with the same junk in their pants (or to just not care if the junk is similar or not, or so on), seems messed up to me.

And, if you try and argue that homosexuality doesn't happen in other species, I ask you to please google 'Whiptail Lizards'- They're a species of lizard which only has female lizards, as they are asexual. Even though the female lizards have the ability to self fertilize their eggs, they must still have 'intercourse' to do so. Heck, I suggest you look up damn near any species, and lo and behold, you'll find homosexuality.

I'm going to marry who I want to marry. I'm going to not marry if I don't want to. I will marry or live with as many people as I love. I will have whatever operations that I decide will make me happy, and my sex change is not something you can police, and not some reason for you to look down on me. You don't get to cite a book and say that I, as a human being, am wrong, and therefore don't need rights. Marriage is my /right/, to do or not do.

None of this is something /you/ actually get to tell me I can't have. Thanks.

It's time to explain why you're wrong. Ready? Ok, here we go!

First, if religion should affect laws, you're not the one to say that yours is the right one. Why shouldn't it follow Jewish law? Or Muslim? Those people exist in America, too. What a shock!

And Separation of Church and State was done to keep them out of each other, not really one moreso than the other.

Also, the country was founded on the right to freely worship, and by forcing your doctrine on everyone, you're wrong again!

And if two people, whether they be man or woman, or man or man, or woman or woman, or Pre-op trans and man, or whatever combination you can think of, are truly happy together and want to forge a relationship that lasts a lifetime build on mutual love and respect, why shouldn't they?

Also, in regard to your last post, saying that being gay is a disorder, well, that just wrong to say. It's really not a choice, and telling someone "You are not a proper person, your brain is defunct and you're not as good" because they like a certain gender is absolutely terrible.

"Also, don't kill me, please."

Don't try to play the victim card. As odious as your stance is, you have the right to hold it. And many, many people in the US are actively exercising this right, and doing their part in regressing the country back to the dark ages.

Take, for instance, the Texas school board's decision to excise Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum, instead adding Thomas Aquinas. Jefferson was merely the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States, and one of its foremost statesmen. Of course, he also authored the Jefferson Bible - a Bible keeping the messages of benevolence and mercy intact, but removing the supernatural elements of the Logos, in an effort to salvage the heart of Christian compassion from the justified critiques of reason.

My friend, an educated theologian with a Master's in Divinity, put it best: besides all other commandments and rules, the most important one is the Golden Rule. But a disturbing number of Christians, especially in the US, are doing their best ignoring it. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate the teachings of Jesus, and it pains me to see them ignored so flagrantly: attacking instead of defending the disadvantaged, the poor, the ostracized; hoarding wealth, when in the New Testament, the one offence that would get you struck right down into Hell was not helping your fellow man.

However, I hope that you respect my wish for your opinion to eventually change and that you acknowledge the complex intricacies and differences of the various Founding Fathers' faiths, such as Quaker, Protestant, and especially Unitarian.

I don't want to kill you. I'm just curious.

"Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around."

Speaking as an atheist, I take issue with this. This country is a secular nation, regardless of who "founded" it. Many of the founding fathers were actually deists, having no religious affiliation whatsoever. Only three were Roman Catholic.

Religious affiliations aside, I would like to draw your attention to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This article was signed into action by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate. Pay particular attention to the very first sentence.

This is not a Christian nation. It is not a Muslim nation. It is not an atheist nation. It is a secular nation. The State must take a neutral stance on all matters of religion.

"I'm going to follow the Catechism and Pope on what they teach about homosexuality etc."

Then you may by all means do that. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. However, that does not allow you to dictate the rights of those around you.

"Marriage is not a right. It never has been. And it is between one man and one woman."

Then why is there a legal definition of it?

"Also, don't kill me, please."

Don't worry. I only eat babies.

No one here is the type to post on a controversial topic and then run away with our hands over our ears. That said--

It disturbs me greatly that you believe that everyone in the United States of America should abide by the rules of your personal religion. Are you sure you've thought your position through?