$1,000 REWARD Offered to find "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in US Constitution

$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

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.

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.

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?

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:

The establishment of a national religion by Congress, or
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

re: “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.”

I agree that whenever Church and State are one and the same, where an “established denomination of the King” is in play, then yes, it has been abusive on the people. That is exactly what the Founders did not want and is exactly why they called for the establishment clause - to forbid the Federal government from establishing a national church. However, by their obvious example, they never meant to eradicate religious expression from government employees.

You’ve been trying to equate “expression” with “establishment” or the mere “endoresment” of a belief as “establishment”. That was never what was meant by the Founders or it would have been settled long, long ago. It’s only now, over 200 years later that now the Courts have ruled that all religious expression is unConstitutional.

re: “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?”

I’m not saying we forego the decisions of the Judicial Branch. What I am saying is that the Judicial branch never had a problem with it until 50 - 60 years ago. Now, they have problems.

I am suggesting that Congress knew what they passed with the 1st Amendment and had no issue with opening sessions with prayer - so, obviously, they did not see this as a violation. I grant the Founders and early congressmen the intelligence that they knew what they passed and why. I’m not so sure about the people in government now, but I trust those much more who were at the beginning of our republic.

re: “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?”

I agree that our Constitution allows for all to enjoy freedom of religion - even in the political realm. If Congress wants to allow an Imam to say a prayer in Congress, then I guess that’s their right. However, what I’m saying is that our laws and founding principles are not grounded on Islamic, Atheistic, or any other non-Judeo/Christian worldview.

The freedoms and rights we hold dear will no longer be supported - even if stated in our Constitution. Why? Because the foundation that led to our rights will be gone. Now, the government can say what this freedom means or that freedom means. They can interpret it however they wish.

I don’t think you have to worry much about what happens to other religions when Judeo-Christianity is completely removed from the political realm. They are not seen as much of a threat as Christianity is. Once you get rid of it, the others will fall in line.

re: “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.”

Of course Christianity is not the only religion on the planet and I totally agree with you that following Christ must be by choice or it means nothing. But, that’s not what we are discussing. You are saying that all religious expression (i.e. Christian religion) is a violation of the 1st Amendment. I am merely pointing out that historically, the Founders, Courts, and Congresses for over the last 200 years would disagree with you.

I have also maintained that it is Judeo-Christian worldviews that are the source of our freedoms and rights in our Constitutional Republic and that to remove that source removes the foundation upon which our republic and Constitution rests.

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.

WRONG. Your theory that it is undesirable for God to be in government doesn't matter.

Our Constitution creates a duality, a tension between two opposing principles.

The fact that you see that as difficult or even unworkable changes nothing. Whether you like it or not, whether you see it as wise or unwise, that is what our Constitution requires.

God is a fundamental part of our national government in the United States.

No particular religion or denomination may be exalted over any other. But religion cannot be excluded from government, politics, etc.

Do you realize that the US Constitution is dated "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" -- which is OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST? The year measurement "THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" is from the birth of JESUS CHRIST. The Constitution declares that Jesus Christ is our LORD -- right above where everyone signed it, and saw that.

Try to weasel around these quotes from the Founding Fathers:

“The Bible should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.”
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

“…..should not the Bible regain the place
it once held as a school book?

Fisher Ames
Author of the First Amendment

“The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
Patrick Henry

”The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next.”
John Jay
First Supreme Court Chief-Justice

“The Declaration of Independence first organized
the social compact on the foundation
of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth…
(and) laid the cornerstone of human government
upon the precepts of Christianity.”

John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ…..Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”
George Washington

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
- John Adams

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Patrick Henry

This also means no endorsements, and no government employee can represent the government as a particular religious embodyment.

No,that is false. The Constitution says "establishment." It means what it says. That is part of our problem. "Apple" does not mean "turnip."

Government may acknowledge God and religion, honor God in general terms, and individual politicians and government officials may freely engage in all religious activities.

Before the US Supreme Court had its own building, it met in a chamber in the Capitol Building. That same chamber was used on Sunday mornings for CHristian church servieces.

Any restriction on the free expression, activity, or indulgence of religion by or within government VIOLATES the Constitutional guarantee of the "FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION."

It is a violation of the First AMendment to restrict in any way the exercise, expression, or practice of religion,

If there is any place in American life where religion is not welcome by law, then the free exercise of religion has been violated.

“Try to weasel around these quotes from the Founding Fathers:”

Thank you. You’ve just confirmed that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians. Only 1 was a deist: Thomas Jefferson. But what you’re completely missing here is the fact that the Framers never put one word of God or Christianity into the U.S. Constitution, even though most were deeply religious. Many framers, like Washington, were Episcopalians, some of which were Vestrymen or Clergymen.

To understand why they left these items out, the answer is simple. They NEVER wanted the government to be a Christian organization, nor practice Christian beliefs, nor endorse God or Jesus, or any religious figure at all. They wanted clear separation between the two, removing all religious tests, endorsements, or mention of God or Christ from anything to do with the supreme law. Instead, they used the Bible, among other legal references, to carefully craft the Constitution in order to eliminate religious endoctrination. Period. Even when Benjamin Franklin wanted it clearly included into the Constitution, all the others rejected his requests.

It wasn’t until the first Congress that there was even a Bill of Rights, so the framers placed freedom of religion below that of the core legal system of the federal government. Now, at the state level, this discussion was completely different.

You can’t have it both ways. Which one is it???

“If there is any place in American life where religion is not welcome by law, then the free exercise of religion has been violated.’

No, this is wrong because the government is to never establish a religion. If what you are saying is true, then the Church of the U.S. should be allowed. Looking at how the Constitution is written, it states that there is to be no preferential treatment by the government to a particular religion. The Supreme Court has deliberated on this for over 200 years. By allowing Christian prayer without Muslim or Jewish prayer, that would be a violation, which currently Congress has been in violation for over 200 years.

If at any time one religion is preferred over another it violates the free exercise of religion. The sword is twin edged. If Muslims were prevalent in the U.S. back in 1791, how would this play out in the overall discussion? To be fair and equal to provide freedom to practice without preferential treatment, they would have had to have been allowed to practice religion in the government, no?

The framers knew back in 1789 that 95% of all people living in the U.S. were either Christians or Deists. There was no need to allow inclusion. People lived their lives with Christ without asking the government permission to do so. They just prayed. They made it part of their daily lives. That of course has changed in the Christian world we currently live in.

Now religious zealots are trying to impose activities to force the issue upon its citizens. Make no mistake this will not save existing religions from extinction, nor those who are not practicing their faith. It’s not only going to backfire, it’s left the door wide open for Sharia style intrusion. Government cannot solve this issue nor should be given permission to do so. If anything, government needs to get out of our lives as much as possible. And getting them out of our religious affairs is not only advisable, it’s an absolute MUST.

If we continue down this path, our Constitution will continue to erode. Christians can do far more by getting more people on board and by being active locally without ever having their children and family members at risk of endoctrination by a federal regime who would just assume we dump religion altogether. They clearly cannot be trusted, so why grant them the ability to do anything outside of the strict letter of the law??? We don’t need these corrupt, illegal, bastardized federal wombats putting the good name of Christianity and God to shame. We shouldn’t allow them to spend one red cent towards anything religious because they continue to urinate on the Constitution and Biblical teachings.

No thank you Congress. No thank you White House. No thank you Department of Injustice. No thank you Deparment of Uneducation. We don’t need your help by you praying in vein, or allowing your style of prayer when we don’t have any clue who’s ensuring it’s being “done according to the law”. All you’re doing is giving Christians a bad name by continuing to smear the religious contexts that were illegally introduced into the federal government to begin with.

You are twisting yourself into knots attempting to reach for something that does not exist.

You and I agree that the term Christian is not in the founding documents, however, any claim that the founders did not believe Christianity to be a founding principal and guide for our republic is simply not sustained by the writings of the founders.

Those who have falsely claimed, for example, that the Bible cannot be read in public schools are either ignorant of the founders writings, or are intentionally misreading the Constitution.

Ben Rush, who penned the words “shall pass no law either respecting.....etc”, later wrote that the Bible should NEVER be removed from public education.

I hope we do agree on this: The intent in the founding documents, and the message in Jefferson’s letter was to assure that the United States would never had an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT mandated religion, such as was the case in England with the Church of England.

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.