[The Urban Sombrero]

1) - Right, Democrat racism which originated from the north, the home territory of all the land owners/legislators, and holders of great wealth at the time. But that's not what you said, you said Jim Crow laws would still be in affect were it not for the heretical and liberally twisted misrepresentation of the concept of separation of Church and State. I say the Republican led dissolution of Jim Crow laws have done little to get us past racial unrest. Mostly because as liberals realized some time ago, fomenting racial unrest is a powerful tool. So powerful in fact Dems just cannot let it go, and Democrats use it almost exclusively to get their way in Congress. For example, I believe and this is my opinion only, that congressional black caucus member Rep Elijah Cummings (D) MO, was able to derail the overall effectiveness of the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Benghazi affair, by agressively using overt and covert charges of racism on the part of the Chair, Rep Darrell Issa. In like manner you would use race to change our national heritage, the Constitution, and original intent, even to the point of revising the conditions of our founding, and that in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary as provided and preserved with great care in the record.

And I say that since it's unfortunate inception, the separation of Church and State ala the liberal vision, has been both gasoline on the fires of civil unrest and elixir of social/political corruption and secular humanism. Regardless of your best thought through rationalization, I see from that day, how far we as a nation have fallen. We are barely recognizable from the rational people we once were, for whereas once we protected the law abiding innocents, we now are become staunch defenders of those who commit criminal trespass as the following DHS report excerpt reveals;

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today issued its first “Declined Detainer Outcome Report,” which highlights the Counties that are not cooperating with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. From the time period between January 28 – February 3, 2017, 206 criminally charged illegal immigrants nationwide were released from custody due to the denial of ICE detainer requests. The worst offender was Travis County, which accounted for 142 (nearly 70%) of those released and charged with crimes including sexual assault, aggravated assault, domestic violence, and robbery."

2) - But you mean like the 'Constitutional principle' which stipulates that the federal government's power is limited by the people? The same government that just ran over the will of the people, as had been recently and clearly reaffirmed by duly discharged state referendums on gay marriage? The people who had nonetheless fallen under the auspices of the former DOJ, and who were at that point forced to sit back with a sense of horror to see those referendums overturned by judicial activists? Such actions amount to open rebellion against The Almighty at worst, and probably treason at best IMHO. So in this manner the few are attempting in our day, to legislate the unwilling many, into submission. Why would the left do this? Because their arguments for gay marriage and abortion on demand to name only two, are unwinnable, in that free men will never allow their own sense of morality to be overcome, no matter how clever or eloquently presented the talking points are put forth. And because despite your argument to the contrary all men have a conscience, and as Scripture clearly states, said conscience guides our perception of morality just as it did the Founding Fathers.

What you say I say is a distortion. Always. If the power of the federal government is not broad enough to guarantee ALL citizens equal protection under the law, it is too narrow. That is not a separation of church and state arguement. Racism, as a matter of the heart, needs no italics, and no Patti Partisan of any party need exalt or fluff feathers.

Your Christian scruples bend your conscience away from adultery, from gambling, yet you do not argue that adulterers and gamblers be denied marriage. Your particular scruples posit homosexuals as a special class of sinner, a class that does not merit equal protection. That is a matter of separation of church and state. Seeking to cloud the issue, you attempt to blow smoke up all our backsides. Douse that flame.