From James Madison's (author of said document) own mouth from the federalist papers (a counter point is made by alexander hamilton on the contrary) the general welfare clause is meant to justify spending, so long as it is tangentially related to other enumerated powers in the constitution. I am really swamped right now with school and work, so i don't have too much time, but i promise we can talk in a week or two. cool?

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Just saw this comment. I'm interested why you think Socialism and the Constitution can't co-exist. The Constitution allows for multiple people to own the same property (otherwise corporations could not exist) so why would it be against the Constitution for the government and the people to collectively own and operate a system such as, say, health care? Additionally, the Constitution doesn't explicitly restrict against a redistribution of wealth. You could even argue it actually encourages it through the General Welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8. So again, why couldn't Socialism and the Constitution co-exist?

In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
The constitution and the bill of rights are very adamant about defending individual rights, individual freedoms, individual choices, so long as they do not interfere with an individuals "Life, Liberty,and Happiness (or property, if you like Locke)" which are defined as inalienable.
Property - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
Socialism - a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Now, defenses aside, the constitution, the guiding force of the United States, seems very very explicitly against many of the policies that are reveled here on the sift.
If you feel that it is outdated, then maybe you should begin a campaign to disband the constitution. But I, and many many others will not allow it.

Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

James Madison [fourth U.S. President] wrote: "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"

John Adams [second U.S. President] wrote: "Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

Sounds pretty familiar, does it not?

In reply to this comment by reason:
Get organized? You atheist zealots have been organized for years. Banning nativity scenes in public areas. Banning crosses at federal cemeteries, and banning the ten commandments displayed in court houses. As a Christian I'm offended by all the fashionable anti religion demonstrations. I believe my right to freedom of expression is being infringed upon. What happened to freedom of religion? Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, look it up you self righteous atheist morons. You have elevated atheism to a new religion so you better ban that too, along with global warming, the latest liberal religion.
----------

As an American, I'm offended by Christian's trying to claim that this country was founded on their religion or principles. America may be made up of a majority of people calling themselves Christians, but "...though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." (Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address)

Separation of church and state is in the constitution! It's in the first amendment. It may not contain the phrase "separation of church and state," but it's clear from the founding father's writings that the first amendment is clearly intended to keep separate the church and state. Who would know better than it's author, James Madison:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820)

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." (James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists: "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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."

Jefferson used the phrase again to a letter written to the Virginia Baptists in 1808: "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

As an American, I'm offended by Christian's trying to claim that this country was founded on their religion or principles. America may be made up of a majority of people calling themselves Christians, but "...though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." (Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address)

Separation of church and state is in the constitution! It's in the first amendment. It may not contain the phrase "separation of church and state," but it's clear from the founding father's writings that the first amendment is clearly intended to keep separate the church and state. Who would know better than it's author, James Madison:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820)

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." (James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists: "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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."

Jefferson used the phrase again to a letter written to the Virginia Baptists in 1808: "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

I'm only upvoting for the discussion. Romney needs to read some of the founding father's writings on the Constitution, religion and government. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in opposition to a bill to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions.

"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."

Madison wrote a letter to William Bradford in April of 1774 in which he says; "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."



John Adam's book A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he writes:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

And I've got to say *wtf for him saying "freedom requires religion." Religion is just another form of control. Oh, and *long too.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

- James Madison

Very prescient quotes from the Father of the Constitution.

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.
- James Madison

I believe the majority of illegal immigrants do not know that they can enter the country legally through any other means, economic depression of Latin American economies via the heavily skewed NAFTA rulings that benefit corporate expansion out of the US into Latin America has meant that lower class labor has been migrating northward.

The government fails to act to allow legal ways to immigrate into the US on the border areas, the influx would be sufficient to provide physical labor for the agricultural industry, the registration and paths to citizenship or green card status will actually bring out all the illegal immigrants.

The problem is no one wants to put forward the issues as they stand and put forward actual solutions to them, the problem is there, building a huge border fence is not going to stop illegal immigration, but politicians are too afraid to tackle the issue, because they don't know how to present the case to the people.

It always strikes me though when god fearing Democracts/Republicans spout out some bigot hateful shit against people just seeking a better life...

America was formed on the basis of escaping religious prosecution in England, to avoid committing the same the constitution was written to separate church and state.

For a presidential candidate to pander to the religious vote by saying "Freedom needs religion and religion needs freedom" shows a marked misunderstanding of foundations of the constitution of the United States of America.

EDIT: It makes sense though, how else does he convince the majority of Christians to overlook his Mormon roots? Push for Theodemocracy in the US, it rallies the religious vote around him. Will most Christians buy it?

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

- James Madison

i suppose this video could be deemed "inaccurate" only if one was blind and or ignorant of our nations history.

said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director.

“I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly, “ Lynn said. “That’s a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system.

“I think it is telling that Romney quoted John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison,” Lynn continued. “Jefferson and Madison are the towering figures who gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.

“I was also disappointed that Romney doesn’t seem to recognize that many Americans are non-believers,” Lynn continued. “Polls repeatedly show that millions of people have chosen to follow no spiritual path at all. They’re good Americans too, and Romney ought to have recognized that fact.

__________________________

Americans United is a nonpartisan organization that takes no position on candidates for any elective office. Lynn said he is responding solely to constitutional inaccuracies in Romney’s remarks, not taking a stand on his candidacy.





In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Hmm. Inaccurate?

In reply to this comment by qruel:
maybe renaming the title to "Mitt Romney's speech on faith in america" might be more specific and help it rise through the sift.

or

"Mitt Romneys Delusional, Inaccurate and Pandering speech about faith"

:-)

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Part 2 here.

JFK's speech on the seperation of Church and State.

For those that would like more insight to the myth of the liberal media, I present several books on the subject. there are of course books that look at it from the opposite angle (that the media really is liberal). I'll post about those books when the video comes up on VS.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
by David Edwards (Author), David Cromwell (Author), John Pilger (Foreword)

________________________________________________

The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
by Edward S. Herman (Author)

Book Description
The Myth of the Liberal Media contends that the mainstream media are parts of a market system and that their performance is shaped primarily by proprietor/owner and advertiser interests. Using a propaganda model, it is argued that the commercial media protect and propagandize for the corporate system. Case studies of major media institutions?the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer?are supplemented by detailed analyses of "word tricks and propaganda" and the media's treatment of topics such as Third World elections, the Persian Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the fall of Suharto, and corporate junk science.
"Edward Herman's invaluable studies of the media in market-oriented democracies find their natural place in the broader sweep of contemporary history. Herman quotes James Madison's observation in later life that 'a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.' The observation is apt; formal guarantees of personal freedom do not suffice to prevent the farce or the tragedy, even if the guarantees are observed. These issues, explored and illuminated in (these) essays . . ., should be at the center of the concerns of those who seek to create a society that is more free and more just." From the Preface by Noam Chomsky

__________________________________________

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion.

The President is part of the Executive Branch, the Attorney Generals are part of the Judicial Branch.

Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power. This US form of separation of powers is widely known as "checks and balances."

Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by each other branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

Please read the constitution of the United States of America more thoroughly.

You continue to avoid my questions... are you Jewish with some sort of mental hangup on "International Bankers".. is that why your so fixated on this? Are you calling Admiral Ward a racist conspiracy theorist because he stated such a thing?

Also.. You left out the following:
More modern theories transcend the religious overtones of the earlier theories. They purport that a clique of international banking houses which exercised financial control through ownership of the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, run by the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Morgans, and Rockefellers then bought up political control and media control to create an invisible government which usurps the Constitutional government and creates wars and depressions in order to gain more control. For more about this theory see the documentary The Money Masters

also... since you took these two small words from one statement made by an insider of the CFR that was exposing it and are subverting the topic to call him a racist.... here are some statements regarding "International Bankers" and the U.S.:

Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.
-- J.P. Morgan (American born private International Banker)

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.
-- James Madison (4th President of the United States)

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States)

Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
-- John Adams (2nd President of the United States)

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.
-- Napolean Bonaparte (Tyrant - attempted ruler of the world)

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
-- Henry Ford (Auto manufacturer and inventor of the assembly line)

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.
-- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (German-born Jewish International Banker that changed his last name to a British sounding name)

This country has been fighting against International and Central banking since it's initial colonization. The banking legacy is that they keep systematically establishing a central banking system which dominates the people in many ways.

Your attempt to label those of us that realize this fact as racists is pathetic and futile. Go crawl back under your rock and leave your race card at home.

It's not a "ban-all-government" idealogy, theo. It's an ideology that is synonomous to what our founding fathers have decreed. Those like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson and several others. We've been warned by many a congressman and president of sinister plots against our freedoms and liberties of which has been slowly chipped away (now more rapidly than ever). If our Constitutional rights are fully taken away then this country is lost, next is the rest of the world. The NWO's prime agenda is to first slowly dismantle America's freedoms (ironically in the name of freedom and security). It will make Orwell's 1984 look like a holiday vacation if we let them succeed.

From wikipedia:

"During the presidential campaign of 1800, the Federalists attacked Jefferson as an infidel, claiming that Jefferson's intoxication with the religious and political extremism of the French Revolution disqualified him from public office. But Jefferson wrote at length on religion and many scholars agree with the claim that Jefferson was a deist, a common position held by intellectuals in the late 18th century. As Avery Cardinal Dulles, a leading Roman Catholic theologian reports, "In his college years at William and Mary [Jefferson] came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy." Dulles concludes:

“In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. ”

Biographer Merrill Peterson summarizes Jefferson's theology: “First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground.”

Jefferson used deist terminology in repeatedly stating his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence used the terms "Creator" and "Nature's God". Jefferson believed, furthermore, it was this Creator that endowed humanity with a number of inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". His experience in France just before the French Revolution made him deeply suspicious of Catholic priests and bishops as a force for reaction and ignorance. Similarly, his experience in America with inter-denominational intolerance served to reinforce this skeptical view of religion. In a letter to Willam Short, Jefferson wrote: "the serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous."

Jefferson was raised in the Church of England, at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially. During his Presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism, that is the rejection of the doctrine of Trinity. In a letter to a pioneer in Ohio he wrote, "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." Jefferson did not believe in miracles. He made his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting Jesus' virgin birth, miracles, divinity, and resurrection, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible. “[The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.”

However, early in his administration he attended church services in the House of Representatives. He also permitted church services in executive branch buildings throughout his administration, believing that Christianity was a prop for republican government.

Church and state:

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was not an abstract right but a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" of one Christian sect over many other Christians - and of the interference of the state in affairs of religion. Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

From 1784 to 1786, Jefferson and James Madison worked together to oppose Patrick Henry's attempts to again assess taxes in Virginia to support churches. Instead, in 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, which he had first submitted in 1779 and was one of only three accomplishments he put in his own epitaph. The law read: “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

One of Jefferson’s least well known writings is: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"- Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia.

Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State", which he believed was a principle expressed by the First Amendment. This phrase has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.”

Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving during his Presidency, yet he did do so as Governor in Virginia. His private letters indicate he was skeptical of too much interference by clergy in matters of civil government. His letters contain the following observations: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government", and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government". Yet, Jefferson advocated the influence of religion in abolishing the institution of slavery in America stating, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

While the debate over Jefferson's understanding over the separation of Church and state is far from being settled, as are his particular religious tenets, his dependence on divine Providence is not nearly as ambiguous. As he stated, in his second inaugural address: “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

the United States government is not supposed to be a democracy, but rather a democratic Republic

Republic - from Latin, res (thing/with regard to) and publicus (public)
Democracy - from Greek, demos (people) and krateo (rule)

What you meant to say is the gov't is a representative democracy / republic. (Yes your civics class in high school was full of crap). It was supposed to be a Democracy, but the founding fathers had second thoughts about the average joe making laws. We might end up Jerry Springer and American Idol...

[EDIT] I like this, I found on Answers.com

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers. These essays, intended to support the ratification of the federal Constitution in New York, distinguished a republic from a pure democracy, describing the latter as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. As Madison pointed out, the representative principle militates against the irresponsible exercise of majority power, for it makes a large republic possible, and it is difficult in a large republic for any faction to become a majority. According to these authors, a large republic would foster the formation of many factions, and this sheer multiplicity of interests in turn would create shifting coalitions, which would hinder the formation of an oppressive or irresponsible majority. Furthermore, because of the checks and balances and separation of powers between different branches and levels of government, any upstart tyrannical faction would encounter many legal and institutional roadblocks.