Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$1,000 REWARD Offered to find "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in US Constitution
RESIST NET ^ | October 21, 2010 | Jonathon Moseley

Posted on 10/20/2010 10:33:37 PM PDT by Moseley

Press Release

$1,000 REWARD OFFERED BY CHRISTINE O'DONNELL'S 2008 CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR ANYONE WHO CAN FIND THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE" In the US Constitution

Contact : Jonathon Moseley (703) 656-1230

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA (October 21, 2010) -- $1,000 is being offered -- including as a donation to CHRIS COONS' U.S. Senate Campaign in Delaware -- for any one who can find the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in the United States Constitution, by Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley. Moseley was the 2008 primary campaign manager for national Cinderella candidate CHRISTINE O'DONNELL.

http://www.SupportChristine.com/reward.html

In a US Senate debate on October 19, 2010, in Wilmington, Delaware, non-lawyer Christine O'Donnell bravely entered Widener Law School to debate lawyer Chris Coons on the Constitution before a crowd of law students and law professors.

O'Donnell called Coons on the carpet, correctly exposing Coons' mis-statements about the First Amendment. Coons claimed that the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not. O'Donnell took Coons to school inside the law school.

When challenged by O'Donnell, Coons then changed his "story" several times, offering several different versions of the First Amendment.

In the end, Coons offered yet another mangled mis-statement of the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell challenged laughingly "That's in the First Amendment?" NONE of Coons' changing versions were an accurate statement of the First Amendment. The final statement Coons offered is not in the First Amendment, to which O'Donnell asked "That's in the First Amendment?"

Despite the Left's attempt to amend the US Constitution by simply repeating "The Big Lie" over and over again, the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found in the United States Constitution. In fact, the words "church" and "separation" also are not found individually anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Coons and the leftist media quickly back-tracked and tried to cover for Coon's gaffe, by changing the subject. The exchange was mis-reported by portraying the First Amendment as, in substance, including the functional equivalent of "separation of church and state."

However, this also is false. The First Amendment guarantees "THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (of religion)." A wall of separation would violate the 2nd part of the clause, violating THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

Any rule that makes religion or religious people unwelcome in any place or any aspect of American life is a violation of the "FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Similarly, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for any person to serve in government or have any position of public trust under the U.S. Constitution.

However, this swings both ways. The Constitution does not permit a test of NON-religion as a condition of serving in government or acting in government. A test that one cannot be religious to act or serve in government violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2008, O'Donnell was the offiical Republican nominee for the US Senate running against Joe Biden. Jonathon Moseley, a long-time friend, ran O'Donnell's party convention primary campaign.

In 2010, O'Donnell defeated long-time Congressman Mike Castle for the Republican nomination running again for Joe Biden's old Senate seat.

Jonathon Moseley is currently an attorney practicing in Northern Virginia.

###

http://www.supportchristine.com/reward.html


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: christineodonnell; churchandstate; constitution; firstamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2010 10:33:42 PM PDT by Moseley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I’ll give $5.00 for penumbra.


2 posted on 10/20/2010 10:37:17 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Some MSNBC anchor’s were claiming O’Donnell was a dunderhead over this,yet they had no proof it was stated in the constitution,they just assume all their viewers have an I.Q.of 42 and Failed U.S. History in High School.


3 posted on 10/20/2010 10:40:03 PM PDT by JohnThune2012 (was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The reward will never be collected.


4 posted on 10/20/2010 10:41:42 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

I love it! I think there could be a whole board game here somewhere!


5 posted on 10/20/2010 10:44:50 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Leno said that Sarah better watch out because Christine is a younger, hotter, crazier version of Sarah. Lucky me catching that while channel flipping. These people are deranged.

O’Donnell gets it right and the law schoolers laugh at her.


6 posted on 10/20/2010 10:45:33 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn

Most law schoolers are Ruling Class wannabees....


7 posted on 10/20/2010 10:47:52 PM PDT by goodnesswins (f you don't support Obama, and the deconstruction of America: YOU are a RACIST.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Liberals think the Constitution is a Living Document.

Must be part of their belief in the Theory of Evolution. A piece of parchment can evolve into a Liberal Wet Dream.

8 posted on 10/20/2010 10:48:09 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (My Rights are God given, not Obama approved...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

9 posted on 10/20/2010 10:50:17 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Why just $1,000? Make it $1 Million! That will get people to actually read the Constitution.


10 posted on 10/20/2010 10:51:08 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Here we go again.

The article completely forgets to mention the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

This means Congress (and any other state with this in their Constitution) cannot create a “Church of the United States” or a “Church of Virginia, Carolina, etc.”.

This also means no endorsements, and no government employee can represent the government as a particular religious embodyment. That’s a critical piece of Amendment I. The framing fathers were very clear about this to prevent a “Rule of the Bishops” scenario so prevalent in England at the time.

So, although government employees are free to practice and express their religious beliefs in their own personal lives as “John Q Public”, they are disallowed to use this relationship to endorse or “enhance” (i.e. religious favoritism) their standing as a government employee.


11 posted on 10/20/2010 10:51:35 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnThune2012

Liberals also state that the 1st amendment says it protects you from “freedom from religion”!


12 posted on 10/20/2010 10:51:51 PM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Most of those “law school” types got “extra credit” for laughing. Their commie “perfessors” were there taking names.


13 posted on 10/20/2010 10:57:18 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Hey kids! Vote for the DemocRATS and get FREE ice cream!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn

If I ever need a lawyer again I will be sure not to hire a Widener grad.


14 posted on 10/20/2010 10:57:18 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Here’s a cool Wallbuilders video that covers this topic.

http://shop.wallbuilders.com/Americas-Godly-Heritage-DVD


15 posted on 10/20/2010 10:58:32 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

A local cbs long time talking head even went after her in a comment section(O’donnell) he does. Don Shelby on wcco.com oct. 19. I do not know if I can post it but check it out or post it, and see how stupid our MN. media is.


16 posted on 10/20/2010 11:00:00 PM PDT by Brimack34 (Carbonite is a joke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Might as well offer a trillion dollars. It’s not possible for anyone to collect it.


17 posted on 10/20/2010 11:02:33 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

OH, SNAP! That photo is priceless!


18 posted on 10/20/2010 11:03:28 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Mark Levin schools a moron on the myth of "separation of church and state". In case you missed this great piece of radio.
19 posted on 10/20/2010 11:07:39 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Hey kids! Vote for the DemocRATS and get FREE ice cream!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The Delaware Constitution says that “it is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God.”


20 posted on 10/20/2010 11:18:41 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

If the Founders wanted the establishment clause to forbid endorsements as well as establishments then wouldn’t they have wrote it that way?


21 posted on 10/20/2010 11:22:45 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I remember when we started the move to send a tea bag to Queen Nancy. Perhaps he needs to receive a copy of that portion of the Constitution. Think I’ll get it started in our Pubbie group tomorrow night.


22 posted on 10/20/2010 11:27:43 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Most of those “law school” types got “extra credit” for laughing. Their commie “perfessors” were there taking names.

--------------------------

Coons, the Marxist liberal being given a pass by the Piss-Stream Media.

chris coons
     Chris Coons of Delaware - 'I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist
     professor at the University of Nairobi'


23 posted on 10/20/2010 11:28:24 PM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

1. Welcome to FR

2. Looks like you won’t be collecting the $1000


24 posted on 10/20/2010 11:31:45 PM PDT by tatown (Obama is Kenyan for "I make love to a woman that looks like Patrick Ewing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I’ll wash Coon’s car while wearing a thong if anyone can find that phrase in the Constitution (and trust me, that wouldn’t be a pretty sight).


25 posted on 10/20/2010 11:39:02 PM PDT by Private_Sector_Does_It_Better (If you like the employees at the DMV, post office, SS office... you'll love government healthcare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"If the Founders wanted the establishment clause to forbid endorsements as well as establishments then wouldn’t they have wrote it that way?"

They did. It's right there. No establishment of religion by by the government. No support of any religion by the government. Congress is not to meddle into religion, period nor provide preferential treatment. Until several key SCOTUS rulings in the early part of the 20th century, states had not been affected by the 1st Amendment.

But here's some extra information directly from the First Congressional notes from 1789 just so that it's even more clear to everyone what the intent was...

September 3, 1789:

On motion to amend article third, and to strike out these words: 'religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' and insert 'one religious sect or society in preference to others:'
On motion to amend the third article, to read thus: 'Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed:'
Both were passed in the negative (rejected). It continues...

September 9, 1789
On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition to the government for the redress of grievances:
This was passed in the affirmative (later to be amended).

It's clear from the back and forth motions in the Senate that the intent was to keep religion out of the Federal Government, especially Congress. Any endorsements would be a violation of Amendment I as it would indicate preferential treatment toward one religion over another.
26 posted on 10/20/2010 11:55:43 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco
The language you cite was debated and rejected, but even it does not make clear that any preferential treatment is establishment. It only forbids establishment of a denomination in preference to another, it doesn't mention endorsement.

The Godless left just redefined establishment to mean endorsement in order to make their "living constitution" evolve into whatever they want it to mean at any given time. Today few even knows what an establishment of religion originally meant.

27 posted on 10/21/2010 12:08:12 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

“The language you cite was debated and rejected, but even it does not make clear that any preferential treatment is establishment. It only forbids establishment of a denomination in preference to another, it doesn’t mention endorsement. “

Not true. Here’s the definition of endorsement:

1. the act or an instance of endorsing
2. something that endorses, such as a signature or qualifying comment
3. approval or support

I think you’re confusing political endorsement with legal endorsement. When Congress endorses a religion, it’s approving of its use for Congress as well as the United Staets as it represents the legislative body of the U.S., which is a clear violation of Amendment I.

One may argue that just because the government doesn’t pass any laws with regards to religion, it’s not a violation of the Constitution. But this has been clarified by SCOTUS as “defacto legislature” many times in the past. The simple common practice and continuance thereof is considered to be de facto legislature by Congress. One example of this is de facto War. Even if Congress doesn’t declare war, it declares “de facto” war whenever it continues to fund armed conflicts.


28 posted on 10/21/2010 12:22:45 AM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

And I’ll go a step further and say that prayer in Congress is also forbidden. The continual act of prayer in Congress constitutes a policy, which is in fact a de-facto law. Congress and the government function on policies. Policies are legal and binding. If they are not, they are challenged in the court system.

The framing fathers always intended to have a clear line in the sand between government and religion. Even though various changes to the phrasing of the Amendment were ultimately rejected in 1789, they provide valuable insight as to the overall intent of the law itself. One can easily see the attempts by various senators to clarify and enhance the phrasing as they felt the context was too ambiguous.

Saying “they don’t mean anything” would be self-defeating as in order to understand the original laws, one must understand why the laws were introduced to begin with. And in many cases, the only way to find out is to witness the construction of the law as it is being introduced in Congress.


29 posted on 10/21/2010 12:32:29 AM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

re: “And I’ll go a step further and say that prayer in Congress is also forbidden.”

If what you are saying is correct, then why did the very same Congress that debated and passed the First Amendment, proscribed for opening each session of Congress with prayer? Why was it not an issue with them?

Why did they proscribe for chaplains? Obviously they saw no conflict with the 1st Amendment.

The reason is because it was not a violation of the First Amendment! It is clear that the amendment prohibited the Federal government from “establishing” (not endorsing) a particular denomination (as was practiced in Europe). They did not want a national Christian denomination that everyone had to support with taxes (as was also the case in Europe).

They had no problem with having prayer or invoking Scripture or God’s name in speeches, on national monuments, and in Presidential proclamations throughout our history. None of these things “established” a particular denomination. Expressions of general Judeo-Christian belief in God by governmental leaders was not considered violating the 1st Amendment for over 200 years - not until the last 30 years. Now, somehow, it’s a problem.


30 posted on 10/21/2010 1:03:21 AM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

“If what you are saying is correct, then why did the very same Congress that debated and passed the First Amendment, proscribed for opening each session of Congress with prayer? Why was it not an issue with them?”

Your timing is off and you’re confusing the 1787 Constitutional Congress with the first Congress. The Bill of Rights weren’t enacted until AFTER the Constitution was ratified. That’s why it was acceptable for the framers to pray during the creation of the Constitution. This caused quite a stink during the formation. After that, many members of Congress and the states themselves were concerned about religion and the infiltration of it into the government. Ultimately they ratified Amendment I in 1791 to prevent it from happening, as it already was immediately after the Constitution was enacted.

Either way, let’s put what you say to the test anyway.

Allah Ahkbar is elected to Congress and becomes majority leader. He wants to start praying to Allah. The rest of the representatives accept the prayer to Allah along with prayer to Jesus. Why not? It’s freedom of religion, right? Now it’s acceptable. After a while, it’s AOK, and other members endorse it because they are too afraid to lose Muslim support, or like the fact of “equality”.

Ultimately it becomes de facto law, i.e. Shariah Law, and America ultimately starts bowing to the East. No shots are fired, and no law has been written. Is this what the framers intended? I would beg to differ. That’s why they added this distinct separation to Amendment I.

You can’t have it both ways. Don’t leave the front door shut while leaving the back door open for yourself. Otherwise enemies will worm their way into the back door like they’re doing now. You can thank the dingaling Christians in this nation who want religion in the government just like the “framers wanted it to be” (wrong), just not ones which are on the “preferred prayer” list.


31 posted on 10/21/2010 1:19:43 AM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

This means Congress (and any other state with this in their Constitution) cannot create a “Church of the United States” or a “Church of Virginia, Carolina, etc.”.

********************

That’s only at the Federal level, since it is a Federal ammendment to the federal constitution.

There were state churches if I remember ... I’m not that old!


32 posted on 10/21/2010 2:25:11 AM PDT by ROTB (Without a Christian revival, we are government slaves, or nuked by China/Russia during armed revolt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ROTB

“That’s only at the Federal level, since it is a Federal ammendment to the federal constitution.

There were state churches if I remember ... I’m not that old!”

You are correct, up until Amendment XIV. In 1833, SCOTUS ruled in Barron vs. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply at the state level. It wasn’t until the Incorporation Doctrine that the BOR finally applied at the state level.

Cases continued throughout the late 1800’s in favor of the BOR at the state level. That doctrine was officially cemented in the famous case, Adamson v. California, in 1947 and continued throughout the 60’s. The precedence is clear, and understandable, that these unaliable rights should also apply at the state levels via Amendment XIV.


33 posted on 10/21/2010 2:51:02 AM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Take an ad out in the student newspaper at Widener University Law School and make this offer to the students and faculty there.

I believe you would get some outrageously uninformed responses.


34 posted on 10/21/2010 2:52:42 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take any more beatings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

First, the same Congress that created the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) also used US Treasury funds to buy 20,000 Bibles, I believe importing them from Europe.

Second, no you can’t have it both ways. Obviously the same rules apply to all religions.

However, Shariah law is not a religion. Islam is a broad-based POLITICAL and governmental system, which includes a religion in it. Therefore, allowing free exercise of religion is not the same as adopting the political and legal system known as Shariah law.

Third, if political correctness causes politicians to accept Islam and Shariah law, then the First Amendment will not make any difference. Already, there is a double standard. Islam is openly taught in our public schools, while people scream about any mention of Christianity.

Fourth, properly understood Shariah Law is itself unconstitutional as a legal or governmental system because it discriminates against women and for other reasons like that.


35 posted on 10/21/2010 5:21:31 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
First, the same Congress that created the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) also used US Treasury funds to buy 20,000 Bibles, I believe importing them from Europe.
This is yet another common misconception. It was originally moved by the Continental-Confederation Congress (not the First Congress) to purchase the bibles in 1777 for the Revolutionary War, nearly 14 years before Amendment I was ratified. The bibles were ultimately never purchased. This was no doubt a good thing during the start of the nation. Christian morals are indeed the foundation of our country. The issue wasn't really religion as an enemy, but the religious endoctrination in politics and government.
However, Shariah law is not a religion. Islam is a broad-based POLITICAL and governmental system, which includes a religion in it. Therefore, allowing free exercise of religion is not the same as adopting the political and legal system known as Shariah law.
You are absolutely correct. Consider the Muslim "faith" to be similar to the "Church of England" as a religion, governing authority, and social caste system all rolled into one. And we know just how "loved" this system was by a group of religious anti-British outcasts.
Third, if political correctness causes politicians to accept Islam and Shariah law, then the First Amendment will not make any difference. Already, there is a double standard. Islam is openly taught in our public schools, while people scream about any mention of Christianity.
Double standards are indeed an issue to deal with. However double standards rolling the other way due to Christian zealots is just as dangerous. If we allow religious organizations the same favoritism, the threat of endoctrination is equally dangerous not because of the religion, but because of the control. The balance is to follow the Constitution, something that's clearly not happening in this and plenty of other scenarios. If we just follow it we're golden.
Fourth, properly understood Shariah Law is itself unconstitutional as a legal or governmental system because it discriminates against women and for other reasons like that.
Good point. The U.S. government fought the Latter Day Saints back at the turn of the 20th century for decades over issues such as these. Alas, they are still here and still alive and well. It will be interesting to see just how this shakes out over the next 20 years, if the corrupt government doesn't bury us before then. What the government should have been doing all along is blocking the Muslim faith here as a recognized religion as it undermines many of the Rights in the BOR. There have been Supreme Court cases revolving around this issue and they are unanimous with regards to their opinions (religions that are against the Constitutional BOR are not religions in the context of the First Amendment).
36 posted on 10/21/2010 8:56:30 AM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco
If you think conservative Christians are going to give up our own freedom just for the sake of what muslims might do or not do, you are wrong.

Muslims hate America because we are a Christian Nation founded upon Christian principles. You can either pick aside in the fight, or get out of the way.

37 posted on 10/21/2010 12:33:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

Endorsement is defined as approval or support, but the first amendment does not forbid approval or support, it forbids establishment! Furthermore it forbids Congress from making any law concerning existing state establishments of religion!


38 posted on 10/21/2010 12:48:03 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
Some thousands of some ones should forward this to the Coon's campaign. He claims he knows where it can be found in the constitution.

With the risk of getting students in trouble with their professor, this should be forwarded to the students at Widener law school also.

39 posted on 10/21/2010 1:02:03 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Islam is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

If the establishment clause protects rights then it protects the right of the people of the various states to decide the issue of establishment for themselves because it actually protected state establishments from federal interference. Liberals interpreted the incorporated establishment clause to forbid the very thing it was meant to protect!


40 posted on 10/21/2010 1:07:16 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

re: “Your timing is off and you’re confusing the 1787 Constitutional Congress with the first Congress. The Bill of Rights weren’t enacted until AFTER the Constitution was ratified.”

Ok, now you’ve confused me. Are you saying that Congress has not opened sessions with prayer or had chaplains since 1791?

Please go to the following U.S. Senate website:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm

I think you’ll find that the Senate has opened each session with prayer and utilitzed Chaplains since 1789.

I orginially responded to your thesis that seemed to say that Congress had intended the First Amendment to prohibit the very thing they’ve been doing since 1789 (opening each session with prayer and appointing chaplains).

My contention with you is that, if the Framers interpreted the “establishment” clause as you suggest - then why did they ever begin the practice of having prayer and chaplains, and then, continue the practice after 1791 if it was considered an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the federal government?


41 posted on 10/21/2010 1:21:57 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco
You come across as a progressive shill sir. Would you care to clarify?
42 posted on 10/21/2010 1:23:23 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Islam is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Endorsement is defined as approval or support, but the first amendment does not forbid approval or support, it forbids establishment! Furthermore it forbids Congress from making any law concerning existing state establishments of religion!
Not true. Amendment XIV says that federal laws override state laws if the state laws violate the Constitution at the federal level. Second, the courts have deemed an "Establishment Clause" as being defined as:
  1. The establishment of a national religion by Congress, or
  2. The preference of one religion over another
The first Congress notes validate this (see my citations above). Having prayer or endorsing a religion is "preference of one religion over another".
If the establishment clause protects rights then it protects the right of the people of the various states to decide the issue of establishment for themselves because it actually protected state establishments from federal interference. Liberals interpreted the incorporated establishment clause to forbid the very thing it was meant to protect!
Again, please read Amendment XIV, which clearly states:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments are in order of precedence. This means Amendment XIV overrides certain rights under Amendment X. We may not "like" it, but every Amendment is Consitutional, provided it doesn't violate other parts of the Constition it fails to address within that Amendment.
43 posted on 10/21/2010 2:13:16 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
Ok, now you’ve confused me. Are you saying that Congress has not opened sessions with prayer or had chaplains since 1791?
No, what I am saying is that members of Congress and the states were very clear on the law. Congress continued to "skirt" this law and does so even today. They knew they were in violation of Amendment I back in 1855 when they discontinued electing a chaplain. Their justification is that they are allowing expression of religion while not endorsing any particular religion, thus satisfying the Establishment clause they created. Before 1791, prayer was completed under the guise of the Protestent Episcopal Church. That irritated such members as John and Samual Adams, who were Congregationalists at the time.

Let me explain what a chaplain is. A chaplain is a multi-religious, non-denominational minister. Even so, it is purely un-Constitutional to pay for the services within Congress. It's also dangerous. Now the chaplain will be forced by court order to begin allowing Muslim and other religions to be rostered during "daily prayer" rituals. The very foundations of religious prayer means it simply has no place in Congress because there is an inherent danger in endorsing, practicing, or fostering religion within the confines of a non-unified, multi-religious group of lawmakers.

This is not surprising. Congress has been violating at least 10 major portions of the Constitution for well over 150 years, in some cases longer. "Do as I say, not as I do."

We would not be having this discussion on the fear of Islam if Congress and the federal government would just eat their own dog food.
44 posted on 10/21/2010 2:41:17 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH
You come across as a progressive shill sir. Would you care to clarify?
Progressive shill? Hardly. I'm a hard-nose Constitutionalist. I'm about as traditionalist as you can get.

You see, I understand that "exceptions to the rule" by our government has put us into the partisan tailspin we continue to find ourselves in. Conservatives in the country tend to fall into this trap of entitlement along with the progressive liberals. They want to make exceptions for themselves, and when the socialists take advantage of the same loopholes, they cry foul.

Take the illegal immigrant invasion for example. Conservatives have looked the other way. Ask yourself...why? The answer is obvious. They make exceptions for themselves by justifying the cheap labor as a "free market" excuse to ignore its evil existance. Free trade is king. But "free trade" comes with responsibilities of sovereignty and regulation. The Constitution is clear on this fact.

The liberals are ignoring it for other reasons, but the end result is exactly the same. Who suffers? Everyone.

What I'm trying to do here is get Christian readers' attention that the door they have opened up for themselves has allowed enemies of the state to sneak right on in, using the very violations of these rules by Christians as a crutch in our own courts.

Remember Alinski Tactic #4, which states:
Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
We as Christians know this is a threat. And it's because we know we've make a nice little argument that "we're a Christian Nation and have special rights". Sorry, but America is no longer a "Christian Nation", mainly because we have failed to fight for Christian morals. It's hard to do so when we don't follow the rules set forth in the Bible, let alone the CONSTITUTION. And when we continue to fail to do both, our nation will continue to suffer and religious enemy sects will continue to infiltrate positions of power and authority.
45 posted on 10/21/2010 3:06:03 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

re: “No, what I am saying is that members of Congress and the states were very clear on the law. Congress continued to “skirt” this law and does so even today.”

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the very people who debated and voted on the 1st Amendment, violated it and continue to violate it to this day?

You believe having a non-sectarian prayer said in Congress is an “establishment” of religion. I guess you must also believe that Washington (by proxy), Lincoln, and countless other Presidents who mentioned God in their speeches all violated the “establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment?

Just so you know, I have served as a chaplain in hospitals before, so I do know what a chaplain is. George Washington called for Chaplain’s to serve in the Continental Army, so I guess (also by proxy), according to you, he violated the future 1st Amendment in this regard, too.

The Declaration of Independence states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights”. Jefferson, though no Christian, was certainly invoking a Theistic God from whom our rights as individuals are derived - not from a Government or a piece of paper - but, from God Himself. Sounds like you would say this is an “establishment” of religion and thus another violation.

You see, what you fail to understand is that our Nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian worldview. That didn’t mean everyone was a practicing Christian, but most held a belief in God and respect for the ethical teachings in the Bible. None of the expressions of faith in God was too much of a problem to anyone until the last 30 - 50 years because everyone understood that such expressions did not “establish” a national church, which was the intent of the 1st Amendment. Such expressions do imply general belief in God, but not any particular individual church.

The problem is now that America has become a morally and a religiously pluralistic society and the Judeo-Christian worldview no longer has as strong a hold on our people any more.

The danger is, as I see it, at some point, if America continues to sponge away the religious underpinnings of it’s laws, customs, and moral foundation - our Constitution will rest in mid-air with no foundation at all upon which to base our beliefs in liberty or justice.

After all, who says liberty is good? Who says the value of the individual is the best? Why are personal property rights important? Maybe we are just made to serve the state. Why not? What foundation is there for us to say that that isn’t the case? Does Islam, or Wicca, or Atheism build a firm foundation upon which to ground our rights upon?

By the way, it was the 35th Congress (1857-1859) that discontinued the custom of electing a Senate chaplain, and extended an invitation to the clergy of the District of Columbia to alternate in opening the daily sessions with prayer. The 36th Congress returned to the former practice.

I hear what you are saying about political correctness forcing Congress to include Iman’s or Pagan Witches to lead “prayers”, but that’s only because our politicians are too weak to stand up and say no to this. Our Nation’s laws and ideals were not founded on Islam, Sharia law, or Aboriginal beliefs - having prayers led in our Congress by Christian or Jewish ministers is in accord with our customs and traditions. One may not like that that is the way it is (or at least was) - but it is true nonetheless.

Now, the move is to eradicate all religious expression from the political realm. That is not what our Founders intended.


46 posted on 10/21/2010 5:29:38 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the very people who debated and voted on the 1st Amendment, violated it and continue to violate it to this day?

You believe having a non-sectarian prayer said in Congress is an “establishment” of religion. I guess you must also believe that Washington (by proxy), Lincoln, and countless other Presidents who mentioned God in their speeches all violated the “establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment?
Yes, yes, and yes. God has no place in the government because it can be easily corrupted by members of the church. Time after time after time it has been used against the people. The Kings. The Pope. Divinity upon the masses in mission style. This connection between "church and state" has been most dangerous and deadly combination to religious persecution since the Eastern Roman Empire. Whenever the two collide you get an imbalance. As Jesus said:
respondit Iesus regnum meum non est de mundo hoc si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum ministri mei decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis nunc autem meum regnum non est hinc.
Now, the move is to eradicate all religious expression from the political realm. That is not what our Founders intended.
If that's not what the framers intended, then they should have never created the first Amendment. And surprise, they didn't. It sounds like you are encouraging the Dominist approach to leadership in America. So you are correct. The founders wanted Christian leadership. However, the states and the first Congress did not, at least not in the sense we view it today.

The role of chaplains is to foster religion. The role of lawmakers is to foster law. The framing fathers knew full well they were making exceptions to the rule because they never included it in the original draft of the Constitution. The first Congress created the law yet failed to follow it. Instead they encouraged Christian behavior, naively assuming another religion would never become a contender for authority in the United States. They didn't follow their own guidelines, assuming "it will never happen here". Fast forward 200 years later. Where are we now?

Concentrating on the latter, it's clear that the courts have interpreted what the law has meant, and what it means now. This is a Constitutional approach to a Constitutional problem. Are you saying we forego the decisions of the Judicial Branch and ignore the third branch of the government? Shall we ignore parts of the Constitution when it suits us? Are you suggesting that Congress has been right all along, even though the courts have disagreed with it on many occasions with regards to prayer in school, government facilities, and various other federal locations?

If you want religious expression in the political realm and allow it freely you must allow it freely to all. Otherwise it's a rule of exclusionism. What you are saying is that Amendment I really says "freedom of Christian religion", correct? What happens when Christianity is threatened by another religion in the political realm and it loses top spot in the Government?

That being said which "Christian" religion is correct for the nation? And why even bother having freedom of religion when the only religion is Christianity and the only prayers in the government are Christian ones? Although Christians may feel their religion is the only one on the planet, the reality is something quite different. Walking the path of Jesus is a choice. And that choice means to follow his path, follow a different path, or don't follow it at all. Without this choice given to others we are not following the practices of our Savior. We are not granting the freedom to choose to others who need saving.

There have been countless items "slid in" to the Government under the radar. Examples include Christmas as a national holiday (forbidden until the late 1800's), "In God We Trust" (introduced in 1864), and bible swearing in courts (mid 1800's). Note that they weren't when Amendment I was passedthere but have been "accepted" as "Constitutional". Why is that?
47 posted on 10/21/2010 6:14:11 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco

The establishment clause never abridged any privileges or immunities of citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, but the unconstitutional liberal “interpretation” of the incorporated establishment clause does abridge the privilege of the people of the various states to make laws concerning the establishment of religion.


48 posted on 10/21/2010 7:29:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BocoLoco
Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Rules for Conservatives: "Make yourself live up to your own book of rules."

49 posted on 10/21/2010 7:51:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." Rules for Conservatives: "Make yourself live up to your own book of rules."
Excellent advice!
50 posted on 10/21/2010 8:46:29 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson