Separation of Church and State

9 Dec 07 | Kasi

[Kasi]

There is NO separation of Church and State, for by the very signatures upon the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, worded to affirm the guidance, blessings and protection of our God/Creator upon our nation, the founders and early state acknowledged recognition of church [religion] for all the people and the state. If the signers were for "separation" they would have re-wrote both documents to eliminate all references to God/Creator. Affixing their signatures without prejudice and bias to God/Creator upon the very foundational documents of this country, the collaborative influence of church upon the state was sanctified. Also, references to God/Creator upon government buildings, our currency, and the speeches by all the Presidents, so far, allows for all faiths, to include those with a religion of NO faith, to live a life "free" to elect faith or no faith. What our founders DID NOT want was a government sponsored church and religion. Which has not happened; however, a minority of our citizens now are trying to force government sponsorship of NO religion, the loss of our current "freedom of religion" by government policy, conspiring against our existing national documents. But! - much evidence exists in the established documents of the United States of America which assert and prove "freedom of religion" for all, to include government officials in public office, was the intent of our founders.

My comments are made after listening to Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the Hugh Hewitt radio program 7 DEC 07... makes me crazy when religious people are expected to loose their faith, values and morals when they hold public office. We are guaranteed our religious liberties as US citizens, there's no open and closed door on that right when our Presidents and government officials take office. God Bless our current rights to religious freedom and liberty of church!

Join with me to promote PUBLIC JUSTICE, as raised with my article "Public Justice confronts Political Correctness" posted at Free Republic 4 Dec 07. Do not allow the minority supporters preaching "separation" to overthrow the original intent of our founders. Why change our way of blessed life that has worked 200+ years?

[OKIEDOC]

I agree, the founders for all of their infallibility's were believers in God first and foremost.

[MHGinTN]

Though he’s a ‘licensed’ minister, Barry serves the anti-Christ, not The Christ.

[sauropod]

Welcome to FR.

[Amendment10]

Let's put some meat on the bones of politically correct c&s separation.

FDR essentially got the Supreme Court to agree with his politically correct interpretation of the so-called general welfare clause while also ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states. He did so so that the Court would give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs like Social Security.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

FDR's disregard for the 10th A. is a big problem. This is because corrupt Supreme Court justices later took advantage of FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. by stifling our religious freedoms. More specifically...

Justice Owen Roberts wrote the following about the 1st and 14th Amendments in the Cantwell opinion.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. ..." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that it completely contradicts what John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., said about the 14th Amendment. Bingham clarified that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Justice Black later used FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to rob the states of their power to address religious issues in the Everson opinion. Indeed, regardless what Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation" and the establishment clause, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, he did so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7

So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted possibly the worst person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.

As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th Amendment. Corrupt justices evidently regarded the 10th A. as a lose canon that was not in their best interest to draw attention to. In fact, to my knowledge, the only post-FDR era state power related Supreme Court case that mentions the 10th A. is Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/yvtqoy I find it troubling that Justice Black helped to overturn the Opelika decision the following year, I believe.

The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the very serious problem that the federal government has wrongly been ignoring the 10th A. protected powers of the states since the days of FDR, particularly where our religious freedoms are concerned. The people need quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.