Will we survive?

9192015 | tayper

[laplata]

Thanks for that.

[laplata]

It’s unbelievable. It’s like Republicans are under some witch’s trance.

---

I’ve thought that for some time. Some kind of spell. Actually it’s Demonic.

When Obama was elected it was obvious that we were lost.

[Pollster1]

In other words, if Obama’s Iranian friends nuke Seattle, SF/Oakland, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Madison, Boston, NYC, Phily, DC, and Broward/Miami/Dade, American freedom can be restored. It’s a heavy price, but the people there voted to pay the piper.

[GingisK]

We went off the rails when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of the public schools.

Nonsense! I despised being forced to be led in worship by people NOT of my denomination. I despised the mockery peers made of religion in general. Worship belongs in your church and in your home, not along side people who make fun of the practice.

I was very happy when they stopped that charade at school. On the other hand, they have taken this way too far by routinely violating the free practice of religion by individuals.

We went off the rails because we failed to push back on encroachments of our Liberty and Founding Principles. We fight back by some serious blogging, BUT NO ACTION. We went off the rails because we were polite little sheep among wolves.

[donna]

Sure, the Supreme Court making prayer illegal had nothing to do with anything. /s

[GingisK]

Sure, the Supreme Court making prayer illegal had nothing to do with anything.

The Supreme Court did no such thing. It ruled that government facilities had to remain religion-neutral, just like it says in the First Amendment. You can pray all you want, when you want, and where you want. You just can't make others do it with you.

It was the people of this Nation turning from God in their own lives and homes that is the root of the trouble. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with that. People NEVER went to school to practice their religion unless it was a church school. You can still do that without government interference.

Perhaps you didn't read my post very carefully. I found that the prayer and "services" rendered in public school to be contrary with my own religious practices; and, I found that most coerced participants were mocking the whole thing as well. It was a farce. I will not permit those like you to force me into worship and "lessons" to your liking. I am Christian, yet find some brands of Christianity to be based in nonsense.

[donna]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you like the Supreme Court deciding when you may or may not pray, you’ve got that. Be happy with the results.

[Yosemitest]

I think you don't realize just how RIGHT YOU ARE !

It takes a little research, but ponder this:

The first place in Scripture where the name Jew appears, the Jews were at WAR against ISRAEL !

It is not Israel, but Judah-a mere three tribes broken off from Israel-which is left behind in Jerusalem.

Of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, the dying Israel had said, "Let my name be named on them" (Gen. 48:16). And truly they now bear the name of Israel.

Notice again the original promise: "A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee" (Gen. 35:11). In passing on the birthright promise the dying Jacob (Israel) said of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, "... let my name be named on them" (Gen. 48:16). Hence it is THEy-the descendants of Ephraim (the British) and Manasseh (Americans)-not the Jews, who are referred to in prophecy under the names of Jacob or Israel. Continuing, Jacob added, "... and let them grow into a multitude." Then, speaking of Manasseh and his descendants alone, Jacob said prophetically: "... he also shall be- come a people [nation], and he also shall be GREAT: but truly his younger brother [Ephraim) shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a MULTITUDE [a com- pany, or COMMONWEALTH] of NATIONS" (Gen. 48:19).

It's time to read the whole book of Hosea (Hosea chapters 1 through 14) with that understanding of just who the Bible is talking to today when God speaks to the nations of Ephraim (the British) and Manasseh (Americans).

Then read Jeremiah 7 with that same understanding.

[Yosemitest]

Hey DUMMY!
Read the LAW and the HISTORY of the LAW.

Americans will not stand with SODOMITES !

Radical Islamist" dictates from the Oval Office's ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ?

Take these GREAT WORDS with you.
Put them on posters along with the faces that said them.


Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice



Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[GingisK]

If you like the Supreme Court deciding when you may or may not pray, you’ve got that.

You are a Chicken Little. The ruling did no such thing. It prevents people from forcing their brands of religion upon others. I thank God for that daily.

I assure you, the Supreme Court is quite incapable of preventing me from praying any time, anywhere, or for any reason.

[GingisK]

Hey DUMMY!

The Supreme Court protects me from people just like you. God's Law is what I apply to myself because I have accepted Christ as my King. I am clearly not supposed to assume that I can apply God's Law to other people. God is to judge other people, not me. Read your Bible.

The differences in Christian denominations is sometimes profound. Now you know know of one important one.

[arthurus]

I think it is interesting that the Press is positing that calling someone a Moslem is an unspeakable insult. Is there perhaps a hint or “xenophobia” here?

[donna]

I’m just not interested in wasting any more time with you.

[GingisK]

I’m just not interested in wasting any more time with you.

I'm not surprised. Facts are of little use to someone who has already made up their mind.

Do you really think anything can be accomplished for God when people are forced to practice religion "your way"? I am a Christian, yet I am particular who leads my children in prayer or Bible study. How could that possibly be something you would not permit?

[GingisK]

So, do I understand correctly that you actually want government paid employees to teach the Bible to your children? Do you actually want that in view of what government employees teach? Who is the dummy?

[Yosemitest]

IDIOT !
I was talking about the United States Constitutional LAW !
But you probably knew that, and was just being sarcastic.
It's called FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT Freedom FROM Religion !

[Yosemitest]

I want them to OBEY the FIRST AMENDMENT to the United States CONSTITUTION !

[GingisK]

I want them to OBEY the FIRST AMENDMENT...

In prohibiting the mandatory school prayer, they DID uphold the first clause of the First Amendment; namely, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Prayer in school was a state establishment of religion and quite unfair to those who wanted no part of Bible study and prayer initiated by a government agency, namely a public school.

On the other hand, you and I can certainly agree that they have gone way overboard, and now seem to be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

As a Christian, I completely despised it when the schools presumed to lead me in Bible study. I have particular theological views that were most certainly not reflected in those government mandated worship periods. The Supreme Court did exactly the right thing when they prohibited that activity in public schools.

[GingisK]

IDIOT !

Nice. Your brand of Christendom is showing. That certainly illustrates why I did NOT want to be led in Bible study by the likes of yourself. I was very happy when the SC stopped that heretical practice.

[GingisK]

It's called FREEDOM OF RELIGION...

Your freedom of religion DOES NOT include making ME worship with you. I am also FREE to worship as I choose. I can assure you that unless you are LCMS, your theology is not appropriate for me. Public institutions are no place for religious worship. The Constitution is very clear on that.