Why is Evangelist Billy Graham on  Richard Nixon's "Watergate Tapes" talking about changing the Constitution?
453412
They are both creeps and Nixon left office because he was a traiter and Billy Graham believes in god as much as the Easter Bunny does
963929
This is a very good point, and i have actually researched it before.  In the Freedom of Religion amendment, there are two clauses: the establishment clause, and the free excercise clause.  The establishment clause is the separation of church and state, or in other words, the government cannot establish or promote any one relgion.  In the free excercise clause, the government cannot ban any one religion.  Oddly enough, atheism is only considered a religion in the free excercise clause, and not in the establishment clause.  This is a sort of loophole that allows the religion to establish atheism in schools, without going against our rights to freedom of religion.  Pretty messed up, huh?
351349
George W. Bush is trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow 3 presidential terms.\n\n\nSorry, you said funny not scary
740079
...I haven't time now to look up quotes, but I know on this web site.  Mr. Barton has done oodles of research on the founders.  I strongly urge you to check this site out - and you could spend hours on it.  We bought several of his tapes, and they are very good.\n...His findings would certainly annoy the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and others who wish to cloud and/or revise history and rob us of our heritage.\nhttp://www.wallbuilders.com/
525795
No way!\nIt's time America stood up and supported this great document.\nIf we did, there would be less government control in our lives.\n\nTry this:\nhttp://constitutionparty.com
621025
Do scientists and historians come into your church and try to spread their ideas, opinions and knowledge? No? Why would you then bring your dogma into a place of learning?\n\nOr don't you think the Constitution of the United States is a valid document? Do you even know what that is?
451864
George Washington said "“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”\n\nI've never heard the quote you talk about. That being said, we have a "Christian" in office now, and look at the condition our country is in. I use the quote around "Christian" because I believe he is a false Christian. The last true Christian we had in office was Jimmy Carter, who is a great person, but a poor leader. True Christians do not have the pride, greed, or lust to be President.\n\nThe seperation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote of a "wall of seperation between church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Constitution states government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
152650
I think that's the essence of the deception of the Bush administration and in many ways the entire republican party. That is, talking about Christian values while not really having any. Would Jesus wage war? What about "turn the other cheek"? Would jesus give tax cuts to the wealthy while ignoring the poor? Bush claims he's pro-life, but starting a war that causes thousands of innocent lives to perish is certainly not pro-life in my opinion. Probably one of the most devout christian presidents we have ever had is Jimmy Carter (a democrat). He has recently been very critical of Bush's presidency. I think his criticism is interesting because Carter himself, is a deeply religious man. I'm not a christian myself, but i have a tremendous amount of respect for christians who actually uphold christian values, but at the same time recognize the values of our constitution. I think Carter does an amazing job of balancing these and he's the role model of a true christian patriot. Bush is the exact opposite. He gives the Chrstian faith a bad name and he disrespects both the values of the Constitution and the Bible at the same time. It amazes me that most Christians think he's on their side. It simply amazes me.
782144
I don't believe Christians "joined" the government.  The Bible (and the beliefs contained in it) should never be constrained or limited by the govt., rather, it should be the conscience of the govt. If govt. goes against that "conscience", I believe it is every believer and every citizens right and obligation to bring govt. back in line with the beliefs that have been laid out in the constitution.  Every framing document written by the founders of this country began with the requests of guidance and blessings of God. For people to say that Christianity has never been a part of our govt. is simply ludicrous.  While they may have not been perfect, the founders held a standard that was based on God's standard; as laid out in the Bible.  \n\nThe standard by the way, is not the Christian next door, or the lady down the road, or the preacher on TV.  The standard is Jesus.  Don't judge Christianity by the followers, judge it by the leader (Jesus) and you will never by disappointed.
906419
Since it's quite obvious that English is not your native language, and that you've never even seen the Constitution, may I ask how you've heard of this document?  Did you read about it on the back of your Kid's Meal bag?
540574
No. It's a far cry from his day. He'd be shocked at how the constitution has been slaughtered and reinterpreted to fit the desires of a fickle society. I'm sure, if he were alive, he'd be explaining what our forefathers were thinking when they wrote our constitution. <*)))><
588351
I know what you are talking about  but neither recall the name of the document nor where I seen it. It wasn't a prediction exactly by a plan on how to corrupt America into a steady moral decline.\n\nAnd everything it listed is happening right down the line suggesting that the Communist plan worked as planned with the progression of time - not quite as fast as they hoped by we are there now.
832021
Because the Emancipation Proclamation might be nothing more than a publicity gimmick -- not truly authoritative law. A constitutional amendment is more authoritative than a President's decree. And more permanent.
653051
Well if that bothers you then just read the prohpesies told by Kenneth Coplaland Ministries and Creflo Dollar mIniatries. Also If you want to change it you can if what you are saying is true. Look I believe in God and he has promised some go things for the future of this country. God can turn anything around if his faithful people ask him too and do what is right.
254324
Neither.\n\nThe genius of the founding fathers of the United States was not that they knew everything, but that they understood that they could not know everything. With that humble attitude, they included in the Constitution a feature which allows future generations to update the Constitution to fit the changing times.\n\nLook at all the amendments which have been added to the Constitution. Every amendment is a slight change to the Constitution to keep it updated with the times. \n\nThe 18th and 21st amendments are a perfect example. The 18th amendment was the prohibition of alcohol because people at that time thought that alcohol would destroy the country.\n\nWhen the people finally realized that the prohibition of alcohol gave rise to an even greater threat (gangsters like Al Capone), they decided to undo the 18th amendment with the 21st amendment. That's the Constitution changing with the times.
1063612
Or this one:\n"I, George W. Bush, promise to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."\nto\n"The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper"\nto\nasking for a Constitutional Amendment all within 2 years.\n\nIt must be really difficult to protect something from yourself...
303185
It is already getting an upgrade.  By the time the Bush appointees on SCOTUS get done with it, we won't even recognize it.\n\nIn any case, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, it designs a very workable and very democratic government.  And it protects the rights of the people by explicitly forbidding the goverment from abridging them.\n\nFunny you should mention language.  Politicians and judges go into contortions twisting the English language in order to bend the plain meaning of the plain language of the Constitution in order to get around the Constitution.\n\nFor example, Bush says that warrantless searches and seizures, which are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, are his perogative because of Article III.  This article says nothing about that at all.  It does say that the President is the Commander in Chief of the army.\nSo he is saying that because he is commander in chief he can ignore the Constitution any time he wants.\n\nI don't care if you are a Bush supporter and a conservative - you are not doing conservatives any favors by letting them get away with brushing aside the Constitution with language hocus pocus and the sayso of some dude in the White House.\n\nThe oath of office of every official and of every member of every branch of the military is a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because it is the Constitution that makes America, that makes America work, and that makes America the best governed nation in the world.\n\nLet's just leave it alone, ok?