[SeekAndFind]

Be careful when you want to use tax dollars to fund religious charter schools.

There are religions out there that preach their superiority over America’s constitution, and that killing infidel are justified. ( You know what religion(s) I mean ).

[PMAS]

**

[CDR Kerchner]

Another constitutional issue coming up for a hearing soon. “Birthright Citizenship” and the Amicus Curiae | by Joseph DeMaio: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/05/02/birthright-citizenship-and-the-amicus-curiae/ #DonaldTrump #BirthrightCitizenship #SCOTUS #solicitorgeneral #DOJ #AttorneyGeneral #DonaldTrumpJr

[gitmo]

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

-Constitution of the USSR

[SkyDancer]

A reprint of that letter would be great to post on those liberal sites (those of you who are brave enough to visit them) whenever they come up with that nonsense about this.

[AZJeep]

It is simple:
When the constitution was written, all countries had
State religion.
Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, ...

The non-state religions were tolerated at the best, taxed, discriminated, persecuted or illegal, in most cases.

All what the founders wanted is, that there would not be State religion in the US!
Very radical concept in late 18th century!

[Inyo-Mono]

Good post!

[BenLurkin]

The time has come for separation of school and state.

[Puppage]

It means the state can’t run the church.

[Mathews]

To me, it simply means the government can’t name a national religion. They can’t dictate everyone will be Catholic or Baptist etc. it doesn’t mean we can’t have religion, just that it can’t be mandated.

[Sacajaweau]

It means that we have choice....the government makes its rules...the churches make their rules.

[Rurudyne]

It can be separation of the church from the state OR the separation of the state from the church ... by which I mean that one must be able to take first place in the loyalties and devotions of the people.

The question is where does the people’s rights and obligations lay: if the people are free in their conscience then they have they right to regulate their government accordingly ... and this is the construction of the 1st Amendment.

But if the government commands the primary loyalty of the people then they are not ultimately free but are bound to observe certain things as “private” and not to intrude on the “public”.

Ultimately the freedom of people vs the freedom of the government.

The idea of a mutual separation, of the “and”, is an abuse at this time in the hands of those who wish the to subject us.

[kaktuskid]

No Church of Rome. No Church of England. No state-sanctioned church.

[DiogenesLamp]

I got into a discussion on this point the other day. Since I went to the trouble of looking up some information, I think it would be appropriate for me to share it with anyone interested in this topic.

Alberta's Child said:
Please cite any references you have to the word “Christian” in the Constitution or in any other of this nation’s founding documents.

There are two in the US Constitution.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

And this:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

The Declaration of Independence says this:

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

And this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And this:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

And this:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,...

The Articles of Confederation say this:

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America ...

And this:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union,..

.

And this:

In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.

And if I got into the various state's constitutions, and other official documents of the time, we would have more examples than we have time to look at.

.

.

.

Alberta's Child said:
The idea that U.S. law favors “the Christian religion” is absurd.

To the contrary. It is absurd to believe otherwise. 20th century court decisions have painted a very false picture of how the early government was constituted. It was *VERY* religious.

Here is an example from the 1860s.

.

.

Alberta's Child said:
There are dozens of major Christian denominations, and it would be a travesty to select one and make it the official state religion.

Now this part is correct, and you have hit the nail precisely on the head for what the founders meant by their references to no religious tests for office, and so forth.

But we are led to believe this is because of a general eschewing of religion from government, but this is not at all the intent in 1787.

The intent was to prevent doctrine disputes between government officials and the various states where different denominations were dominant.

The Virginians were Anglican, the Marylanders were Catholic, the Massachusetians were Puritans, and the Pennsylvanians were Quakers.

If you allowed religious tests or had religious requirements for office, you would quickly blow apart your coalition of states. They wanted to avoid that, but they never intended to go so far as to excise religion from government.

They all believed the nation was Christian, and that it would always remain so. They had no thought of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or any of the other religions they regarded as pagan.

No. All religions were never intended to be seen as equal in the eyes of the US Government. It was designed and intended to be overtly Christian, though non-denominational.

[vpintheak]

Those who are not mentally retarded, or purposely retarded; know what it means. Government cannot force a religion upon its citizens, they are free to do worship what or what they want; or choose not to. And no retards, having a prayer before a public meeting isn’t forcing a religion upon you.
That’s it. Nothing else. No other retardation needed. Simple. Easy. Even a leftist or an atheist can understand that.

[Political Junkie Too]

All the first amendment protections of individual rights in the first amendment should be taken together as reinforcements of the same concept. Regarding religion:

• "abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others. It's also the preacher sermoning from the pulpit of his church or the proselytizer standing on a street corner.

• "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together to hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected of being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you. This includes hearing religious speech.

• "freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence. This includes printing Bibles and other religious tomes.

• "the freedom to worship" combines the above three, publishing the tenets of a religion, gathering in common prayer, and speaking about one's beliefs to others.

• "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority. Appealing to the government for religious needs is included, such as applying for grants.

Add to this the Article VI protection that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and it's clear that there was no "wall of separation" in the Constitution intended to prevent the government from treating religious organizations differently from any other entities, or exluding them from the public square.

-PJ

[MacNaughton]

So far, no comments on this thread about what is happening east of Plano, TX, at the EPIC. From what I have read the Muslims intend to implement Sharia law over the community there and levy a jizya (tax) on the infidels that choose to live there.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Trouble is, nobody actually goes to the original source. Without that, the question cannot be answered “What Does ‘Separation of Church and State’ Really Mean?”.

Thomas Jefferson? No, not Jefferson. This blog posting failed on that as well. The concept of separation as we understand it is of Puritan origin, it comes from Roger Williams.

You may notice that not one person in this discussion has even mentioned Roger Williams. That’s because progressives won - they control our history. They have for nearly a century and the progressive control of U.S. history has no end in sight.

No Puritan created a system of destroying Christianity. Knowing that this is where the idea originally comes from puts many progressive memes and progressive mythology to bed.