There IS A Separation of Church And State – In Defense Of Churches Named For Night Clubs – The Mike Church Show

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

ON TODAY’S MIKE CHURCH SHOW

Truth: The Mass Hysteria That #MeToo Has Become Is A Revolution Instigated By Women – How ironic that the benefactors of the “sexual revolution” i.e. women who are no longer shackled to the institution of marriage for sex; are now rejecting all the “benefits” the revolution gained them including cheap, no strings attached sex with men they never intend to marry. Think about it: where will the liberated find men to “hook-up” with if not primarily in the workplace that they demanded entry into? In the new, #MeToo version of life, is touching a knee or exchanging a hug always the beginning of being #MeToo’d? Did the stars of “Sex And The City” think that all the casual sex they lustfully sought should begin with the sex after they had consented?

DeceptiCONNED: Oh But, Mr. Hall, There IS A Separation of Church And State – Mark David Hall has written an interesting piece about the Founding Fathers and their views on separation of church and state that is worthy of a look. First of all, any discussion of this matter must define the terms correctly i.e. what is the “State” and what is the “Church”. In 1789, the State was the de jure law under the constitutions of the states in the union. The Church was not the Roman Catholic one but any Protestant “denomination” that had won favor in the aforementioned state legislatures. As the Federal “State” came into existence it too had to be considered when making broad statements and there is no doubt that the Constitution was hostile to the Church having any influence on that new government. This is amply demonstrated by the clauses against religious tests for office and the idolatry of “We the People” as the new God i.e Church. Martin T. Horvat sums up the colonial ‘Murican hostility to the Catholic Church thus…

 

In Defense Of Churches Named For Night Clubs (You read that right) – It must be a sign of the times when writers can find honest work publishing stories that defend the naming of “churches” by “marketing consultants” even if the name suggested sounds like a “night club”. Folkds, you just can’t make this stuff up. The author ends his “critique” of the First Relevant Church of Spa by slandering Shakespeare’s “rose by any other name”.