Home » Posts tagged "Separation" (Page 3)

The Separation of Church and State, Violations of the First Amendment


The Freedom From Religion Foundation has brought a federal lawsuit against President George W. Bush regarding the National Day of Prayer. www.ffrf.org Many religious people get angry when these lawsuits come up, and often bring up “under God” in the pledge of allegiance and “in God we trust” on our money as evidence that the United States was founded upon Christian morals and Christian values. This video shows the origin of those phrases as a direct result of the fear incited by the “Godless communists” during the 1950’s. 1952 Pres. Truman and Congress declared a national day of Prayer June 14, 1954 Congress unanimously ordered “Under God” to be put in the pledge of allegiance July 11, 1955 Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a law that made it mandatory that coinage and paper currency carry the phrase “In God We Trust” 1956 Congress passed an act that replaced our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” with “In God We trust” Our rights are worth fighting for, whether the violations of those rights are old and ongoing or completely new. Some of us are willing to do something, whether it is about these issues or any other issues. Doing nothing will not move us forward. Music used with permission: Divinity Destroyed “Empty The Sky” www.myspace.com

How to Identify the Wall of Separation Between God and State in the U.s. Constitution

“Original Intent” is a book by David Barton about Supreme Court rulings that have stripped the Constitution of the founders’ original meaning.  It was published in 2000 by WallBuilders of Alemedo, Texas.

<b>David Barton Argues Against<br>

Separation of Church and State</b>

The book emphasizes religious aspects of the Constitution, especially the doctrine of separation of church and state.  Mr. Barton attempts to show this was not part of the original intent of the founding fathers.  

The author discusses eight Supreme Court landmark religious liberty cases which followed the 1947 Everson case.  The latter introduced the “wall of separation” terminology.  In these he claims the Supreme Court rewrote the original intent of the founders. 

Later chapters demonstrate how the new subjective standard of judicial opinion is altering the Constitution and Constitutional law in fundamental ways. The law is in a state of flux because the Constitution has become whatever the justices say it is. This new era of positivistic law began in the 1930s and 1940s.

<b>Thesis Is Flawed</b>

The problem with the book is a flawed thesis. The founders did in fact intend to separate the new government from the authority of biblical law.  Surprisingly, David Barton actually applauds this.

David Barton states that “there is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Founders intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson…” (p.179).  The actual words, “wall of separation” do not appear, but the wall is nonetheless set in place by Article VI, Section 3.

This provision disestablishes Christianity as the “coin of the realm” so to speak.  When the Constitution says that “no religious test shall ever be required for any office…,” it makes it illegal to require an officeholder to swear to govern by the Bible.  It thus established the U.S. Constitution as a pluralistic and secular document.  This is clearly a “wall of separation,” divorcing the legal system from its religious foundation.

David Barton alludes to Article VI, but praises its effect. He asserts that, “…it was therefore not within the federal government’s authority to examine the religious beliefs of any candidate” (p.34). He adds with approval that “The Founders believed that the investigation of the religious views of a candidate should not be conducted by the federal government, but rather by the voters in each state.”

That is the heart of our problem. A declaration of religious neutrality by the Federal government. This would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and declaring that he wasn’t going to favor any particular religion, but would leave it to the tribes.

On the contrary, it is the primary duty of government to require that its officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion.  It is cultural suicide to neglect this duty.  The law of God is the only source of justice, and God expects the officeholder to swear to uphold it.  David Barton fails to grasp this most basic biblical principle of civil government.

<b>Innocuous Civil Religion</b>

David Barton and the founders prefer a milquetoast civil religion, rather than undiluted Christianity.  To quote the author, “I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth… — Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law: ‘not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets’ …(p.70)”

“The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as ‘enlightened,’ by John Quincy Adams as ‘civilized,’ and by John Adams as ‘rational.'” (p.127).  As long as Christianity remains a toothless, feel-good religion, devoid of doctrine, David Barton and the founding fathers are apparently happy with it.

And this leads to another root problem.  David Barton virtually always refers to civil government in terms of what it must not do respecting separation of church and state.  He ignores the responsibility government has to govern pro-actively in submission to Biblical law.  As noted above, his Christianity is toothless when it comes to obligations for the civil magistrate.

This rejection of God and Biblical law as the basis for the new government leads inevitably to disregard for the Constitution we see today.  When they rejected the absolute standard, the founders guaranteed that their posterity would end up adrift in a sea of subjectivity and oppression.

In the end, Mr. Barton calls for a return to the “original intent” of the founders to create a limited government based on Christian principles. But the flaw in his thesis makes this impossible.

Departure from the original intent of the Constitution is not our problem. Rather, our problem lies in the seeds of humanism and religious neutrality that were planted originally in the Constitution and are bearing their evil fruit today.

For more information about the anti-Christian features of the U.S. Constitution visit http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/us-constitution.html Dennis Woods is webmaster and also a political pollster and fundraiser in Oregon, using the Dog Catcher Campaign Strategy: http://www.america-betrayed-1787/gary-north.html

JFK on the Separation of Church and State


Senator John F. Kennedy speaking before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas on September 12, 1960. Copyright: Kennedy Library Foundation

Constitution Lecture 9: Separation of Church and State


The meaning of separation of church and state, as described in the First Amendment.

Where does it say “Separation of Church and State”?

These words are not found in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence!

The first amendment states:
“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 assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Separation of Church and State is not here! The concept MAY be here but it is not a “clear-cut” separation as we have been led to believe.

In our elected officials, is it even possible to separate what a person believes from what it takes to make the decisions theses officials are expected to make? If there is a bill to vote on that goes against ones moral standard, ( morals most likely based on a religion ) would not this standard rightfully have a part in the making of the decision? If this is a true assumption, and I’m sure it is, then it is impossible to ( as we have been led to believe ) separate church and state. It would thus also seem a logical assumption that —- You can take the “state” out of “religion” —- but you can’t take “religion” out of the “state”!

So, an example of the only legal separation is this:
When students want to pray in school, the Bill of Rights restrains any government employee from making any statement regarding it! The Bill of Rights plainly states there is no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion therefore there is only one thing government employees should be legally able to do…..and that’s to keep their mouths shut! This is the only true “Separation of Church and State” we all should be seeing, nothing more and nothing less!

The Separation Of Church And State Agenda

Most discussions opposing the role of Christianity in the United States arise from an abyss of ignorance so deep as to be unfathomable. You can endlessly drop boulders into this chasm of intellectual darkness without ever hearing one hit bottom

Speaking with certitude, people insist our Constitution established a separation of church and state. Clueless, they don’t realize their claim, and their obvious self-satisfaction with stating it, simply proves they’ve never read the Constitution and lack any knowledge of what it says.

The media often report on this “fact” of separation-and call it professional journalism. The politically correct engage in long, earnest conversations based on this untruth. How can mature, at least chronologically, people hold so tightly to an opinion so obviously false?

Can you say “agenda?”

The writers of the Constitution clearly intended for Christianity to influence the governing of this nation. For one instance, the Constitution specifically provides for a Christian chaplain for each branch of Congress. The chaplains are paid to open every session with prayer and offer counsel to members of the body. Would the originators of the Constitution include a provision to perpetuate the great importance they attached to the Christian faith, a provision planned to endure throughout the life of this nation, then say religion could have no part in our governance?

A simple reading of the Constitution provides other examples as well. The Constitution isn’t so long that, even with sounding out the words, promoters of the separation canard couldn’t read it. And if they want to know about the First Amendment, from whence they claim to have reaped their separation notion, the Library of Congress has contemporaneous commentaries on the creation of the Bill of Rights, written by Gouverneur Morris, who was present throughout the process. You could look it up.

The “separation of church and state” phrase came from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Baptist Sunday School Association in Danbury Connecticut. However, the letter is not about keeping Christian influence out of government, but about the Federal Government not interfering in the free practice of religion. Jefferson typically didn’t comment on the Bill of Rights because he, in France at the time, didn’t participate in its creation.

To shed light on Thomas Jefferson’s real attitude toward Christianity, consider the three school systems he started in D.C. and Virginia. The required texts for each school system were the Bible, Watt’s book of hymns and a reading primer. Those books, he declared, are the basis of a good education.

So, there’s no separation of church and state, and Thomas Jefferson lived and supported the Christian faith. Oliver Stone not withstanding.

But there’s more! Not content with exposing their lack of Constitutional knowledge, drivers of the agenda loudly parade their ignorance of history. Stroking professorial beards, they pontificate on their delusion that the United States was never intended to be a Christian nation. They must put aside all our founding documents to pull this off, of course, but no matter.

Perhaps they should reconsider the safety of the platform from whence they hold forth since historical records profoundly prove the falsity of their claim.

According to the Congressional Record, the first session of the United States Congress started with several hours of Bible study and prayer. All members participated. The practice of starting each session with prayer and Bible study continued for years. You could look it up.

United States government buildings are chock-a-block full of Bible quotations, architectural detail and statuary. Check, for one instance, the Supreme Court building, finished in 1935, for its many references to the Ten Commandments.

Also, in the early days of the Republic, Christian church services were held in virtually every Federal building in D.C. While President, Thomas Jefferson attended services in the House of Representatives chamber. When he decided the music needed more energy, he ordered the Marine Band to play each Sunday.

And President Jefferson sent missionaries to the Indian tribes, and provided government money to build churches, so the Native Americans might enjoy more fullness of life. History says the missionaries were well received, and the arrangement suited everybody involved. You could look all of this up.

So, the Constitution doesn’t mention a separation of church and state. History proves the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And the real Thomas Jefferson doesn’t work out as a patron saint of those who seek to remove God from this nation’s daily life. Why do the lies continue?

Truth is on the side of angels, not agendas.

Bette Dowdell is a former IBM Systems Engineer, small business consultant and software company owner. She authored How to be a Christian Without Being Annoying, a book about how the Bible describes Christianity and creates Quick Takes on Life. Read about her book and quotes at http://www.ConfidentFaith.com

Prop 8 and the Separation of Church and State

There is and has always been a great abyss between the religious and the secular.  Religious doctrine directs a believer’s behavior, and when a conflict arises between beliefs and the state, it seems that the logical course of action for the believer is to change the law. So it is with Prop 8.

Make no mistake; the quintessential issue underlying Prop 8 is the separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is an American concept first proposed by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist that a “wall of separation” between government and religion was created in the first amendment.  The first amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Ironically, the first Supreme Court reference to Jefferson’s idea is found in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States. It’s ironic because Reynolds was a Mormon challenging the state’s right to prohibit bigamy and Prop 8’s biggest source of funding is the Mormon Church, according to by Dan Aiello of the Bay Area Reporter.

Reynolds was a Mormon who argued that it was his moral responsibility to marry often and that the government had no right to interfere with his constitutional right to practice his religious beliefs. The court rejected his argument.

Chief Justice Waite wrote a brilliant opinion. He first reminded the reader that prior to the adoption of our constitution the demos were frequently and unwillingly taxed to support religion, even if they were not members of the church, and were sometimes punished for failing to “attend public worship and for entertaining heretical opinions.”  The court further said “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” In other words, a person can believe anything he or she wants as long as exercising that belief does not break the law.

Prop 8 is an attempt to inject religious belief into our legal system. It is steeped in biblical writings dating back to circa 1200 BCE. There are numerous biblical references to homosexuality being an abomination in “God’s eyes.” The first is in Geneses 19:4-8 where Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob of crazed homosexuals in an attempt to protect angels sent to warn Lot of Sodom’s looming destruction.

 If religious doctrine dictates behavior, then the author of homophobia must be the Judean based religions. Perhaps the origin of western homophobia stems from the days of Jewish captivity in Mesopotamia and Egypt. During the time of and prior to Ramses II, the prisoners of war were enslaved and some were publically sodomized as both a symbol of dominance and obedience.  It is likely that many of the Jews were publically sodomized as well as a disciplinary measure.

The Jews left Egypt after many generations of slavery and being force to watch. Once free, they enacted their own laws. If you doubt the imprint of slavery upon a people ask any African American what he thinks.

Whether or not this explains the origin of homophobia it does not address a blatant misrepresentation made by the proponents of Prop 8.  On their website, protectmarriage.com, they claim that Prop 8 “…simply restores the meaning of marriage and protects it as an essential institution that has benefited mankind since the beginning of time.” If this means that same sex marriage has never been legal, they are sadly mistaken. In fact, the first laws prohibiting same sex marriage originated in Rome after Constantine declared Christianity to be the state religion. In 438 Theodosius II, Christian emperor of Rome in Constantinople, enacted the Theodosian Code which was the first law in modern history to prohibit same sex marriage, according to Ebsco Host. In virtually every other culture prior to this time same sex marriage was accepted.

The website also states that “Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It is inherently discriminatory. When your grandfather or grandmother was a child, it was illegal for a white woman to marry a black man or vice versa in most states. During World War II Japanese Americans were rounded up and isolated even though they were American citizens.  

Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University said in a TV ad that a Massachusetts Appellate decision would lead to same sex marriage being taught to school children in California. Massachusetts law is not binding on California law. Professor Peterson failed to return my phone call when asked to comment.

One television ad says that gay and lesbians have the same rights as straight people and Prop 8 does not change the law.  Then why do we need Prop 8?

It is true that in 2000 Prop 22 which banned gay marriage passed by a large majority. Unlike Prop 8, Prop 22 was not a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment cannot be changed by the state legislature or a judge. Injecting religious beliefs into our state constitution violates the most fundamental principals which the founding fathers of this country used to frame our constitution.

The separation of church and state is what divides California from fanatical Muslim States in the Middle East.  Prop 8 is a religiously backed issue, and worse, outsiders from other states are jumping into the fray in the mistaken belief that California’s business is their concern.

Religion has its place. It does not belong in politics. It does not belong in our constitution. Any religion that advocates discrimination  does not belong in California. 

I’m the former Opinion Editor for the online Santa Monica College newspaper. I have written several articles for the paper.

Travel Rewards Cards
crib bedding sets
remote control trucks