When they keep lying tell them the truth (Separation of Church and State)

Aug 27th, 2003 | Annals of Congress

[ICE-FLYER]

So much of the anti-religionist arguments have a high need of ignorance and deception to acheive their goals. Most of them know full well the "Establishment" clause does not mean what they keep telling others it means. But they have the media all to eagar to help them and the educational institutions are so willing to bypass historical fact to help as well.

Here is the congressional recording of the discussion surrounding the 1st Amendment and what it means. This is exactly what the left and anti-religionsist do not want the public to have any real knowledge of.

From the Annals of Congress,

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
(Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789)

And if any of them want to dregde up Jefferson as having given us this interpretation of his now famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, ask them how they would feel if Presidents today appropriated federal money for, say, the building of a church and more money to pay its priest a salary. I am sure they would tell you of how unconstitutional that was. Good, then show them the following where Jefferson did EXACTLY that and ask them how he could if his own words "Separation of Church and State" were supposed to restrict him.

Jefferson used federal monies to teach the Indians the Gospel of Jesus Christ. he personally authored "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". He approved funding while president for this. Annual support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. The treaty approved stated : "And whereas, the greater part of the Tribe having been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion.. and.. three hundred dollars to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church"
[Henery S. Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson (New York, Derby & Jackson, 1858) American State Papers, Walter Lowery and Matthew St. Claire Clark, Editors (Washington D.C. Gales & Seaton, 1832)]

[ICE-FLYER]

If you wish to be very well armed to combat the absolute lies and distortions used on grand scale by the left and ant-religionists of this country then get the book titled "Original Intent" by David Barton.

In it you will have hundreds of examples of the founders words, but more importantly it will be in their context and most importantly, it will have the primary source to the page as to where it comes from. An exceptional resource.

[alancarp]

Worth not just a BTTT, but a bookmark.

[Roughneck]

Worth not just a BTTT, but a bookmark

Absolutely!

[freedomcrusader]

The Amendment says Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion because by definition, only the legislature can establish a religion.

The incorporation of the 1st into the 14th then only applies to state legislatures and the representative bodies of lower governments.

Notice that what the 1st does NOT say is that no federal court (including the "Supreme Court") shall not establish a religion, namely because no action taken by a court can establish a religion.

Therefore, to say that courts can't post the ten commandments because it establishes a religion is preposterous.

The 1st only applies to legislative bodies because courts cannot mandate a state religion anyway.

[Sir Gawain]

The Founders just didn't understand the Constitution. Yeah, that's it.

[ChewedGum]

Go read Rehnquit's dissent in Wallace vs. Jaffree:

  Wallace vs. Jaffree Dissent

Gum

[reasonseeker]

How ironic that, to combat lies and distortions, you recommend reading David Barton, who himself has admitted to using fabricated quotations:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm#MYTHING

[Jonx6]

I seem to remember Alan Keyes saying something about the states having established religions at the time the Constitution was ratified. Does anyone have a source on that?

[Roughneck]

Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:



"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471

Thanks ChewedGum

The government has it's fingers in many things that are not constitutionaly theirs to take over: such as Health Care, Gay Advocacy, Environmental Protection, WELFARE, Social Security..too many more to mention.


Where is the outrage when the government oversteps itself in the relm of SOCIALISM?

It seems only religion is being aattacked and with great hate and venom. I, for one, will no longer remain silent about the socialistic attack on religion in this country - specifically christianity.

[LiteKeeper]

If you wish to be very well armed to combat the absolute lies and distortions used on grand scale by the left and ant-religionists of this country then get the book titled "Original Intent" by David Barton.

Additionally, visit his web site for a number of excellent articles. One in particular is Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments

[ICE-FLYER]

How ironic that, to combat lies and distortions, you recommend reading David Barton, who himself has admitted to using fabricated quotations:

LOL!! You and the person your link quoted, are entitled to their opinions. Bartons homework is well researched and the foot note to that quote has not been denied, interestingly enough.

[ICE-FLYER]

BTW, Thanks for doing what so many psudo-intellectuals like to do, you tried to discredit irrefutable historical fact with a tangential argument. Attack the congressional record and the actions of jefferson I posted with a side argument on a totally different quote having NOTHING to do with the facts.

[f.Christian]

The contitutional wall the founders were building was ...

to protect state and individual rights from a national govt - religion ---

that WALL has been breeched - demolished by liberals !

"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any ... national ecclesiastical establishment --- which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)

Check out the link above !

Old wall constitutionalist ... keep govt out ---

new wall constitutionalist --- keep God out !

[ChewedGum]

Fantastic Thomas Cooley quote...thanks for sharing it!

Gum