Posted on 07/10/2006 8:41:07 AM PDT by Cato Uticensis
Separation of Church and State? Multiple Choice question for all you out there-
"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?
A. Pol Pot's Cambodia B. Nazi Germany C. USSR D. United States
If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.
In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.
Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.
And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.
With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!
The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.
The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.
So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.
The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).
Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.
Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.
The powers granted to Congress are listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere is the federal government given the power to supersede the inherent rights of the States in anything OTHER than those powers listed.
You are ignorng the fact that Article VI itself says that "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", the US Constitution is our supreme Law of the Land. And our supreme laws can be enforced against any infringements, fed/state/local. -- No one is above the law. ---
under the Authority of the United States
Again, this authority is laid out in the Constitution. As long as the federal government stays within the confines of its enumerated duties which are listed in Section 8, it remains Constitutional.
And as long as States do not attempt to use powers prohibited to them, they remain constitutional. ---
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I've showed you this...repeatedly.
You showed me ~what~ repeatedly?
Your theory that the BOR's do not apply is also belied by the 10th, wherein powers are "prohibited by it [the US Constitution] to the states".
LOL! Nice of you to breeze by the first part:
Weird hype. the "first part" is not "breezed by".
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The federal government must stay within its sphere of operation and the State governments must stay within theirs.
Exactly my point as to the States. -- They cannot infringe on prohibited powers.
-----
Rant on that CA's gun prohibitions are constitutionally OK.
I never said they were. You make the assertion that they California MUST have a RKBA amendment, but they do not.
Not true.. I've asserted that California has no power to write 'laws' that infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.
Nor does the federal government seem to be in any hurry to force one on them.
Yet this supposed lack isn't keeping anyone from defending themselves with one, is it?
It's keeping thousands of us from buying semi-auto weapons that are perfectly legal in the rest of the USA. -- Why are you defending this type of CA gun grab?
So what would having it written down change...and why aren't the people of California standing on the doorstep of the legislature to change it?
They are, - but the majority rules in the democratic State of CA; -- and you defend their 'gun rules'. -----
Get real, -- the feds want to outlaw guns just as bad as CA does.
Sorry, not a power possessed by government at any level.
-----
Yet CA is 'outlawing' as above, and you defend them.
You have this really bizarre habit of quoting rather esoteric passages, imagining that they buttress your poorly made observations. -- Dream on.
(sigh)
Article IV. - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Hard to insist on a Republican form of government when when you don't even know what one is.
Sigh, there you go again, imagining you've made a point that proves I "don't even know what" a republican form of government "is". --- All you're really proving is that you can't make that point logically, -- so you make a lame inference.
If you want to find out what the Founders meant you have to read what they read and then what they wrote.
Inferring of course, that you are the expert and have read everything .. -- As I said, dream on. -----
Believe what you like.
Until you actually understand what the words in the Constitution mean, and not just what you've been told they say, your rights will continue to slip away.
And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Whatever
"In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the 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 of the equal protection of the laws."
This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states."
As I point out in the post, the Establishment Clause CANNOT be regulated by the Federal Government, as the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from doing so. If you apply the XIV Amendment to the I Amendment, then the I Amendment is overturned. If the I Amendment is overturned, then what law is there to impose on the states? It's a paradox. Remember "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING..." that means the Federal Courts can take no case respecting an establishment of religion, unless it's Congress making a law.
The XIV Amendment on the Establishment Clause has been used by Secularists to tyrannize people into removing Ten Commandments monuments ad school prayer. It has been used to tyrannize, not liberate.
<<--- the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states.
If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause?
Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.>>
And each state has a state Supreme Court to determine whether a violation has been committed. The law of this land, as you put it, forbids the Federal Government from iterfering in these matters, so if you have respect for the laws of this land, you will oppose said interferrence.
By the way Mr Paine, if any mention of God by a state is UnConstitutional, as the ACLU would have us believe, then about half the states'Constitutions are Unconstitutional
Florida Constitution PREAMBLE-
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
The Alabama State Constitution Preamble runs:
We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
And so on for 20+ other states. Does this mean we are not a part of the United States? Is the bond between our states and the US dissolved? Do we need to form a Confederacy? Or is the ACLU just full of knockwurst? Which is it?
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.
the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause?
Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
"-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; --" is exactly what the clause says, no more.
-- States also 'shall make no laws' that violate the clauses in the 1st, -- as they apply to the State legislatures via the Supremacy clause and 10th Amendment.
And each state has a state Supreme Court to determine whether a violation has been committed.
State Supreme Courts have no jurisdiction to decide whether the US Constitution has been violated. The USSC makes such decisions as per Article III.
The law of this land, as you put it, forbids the Federal Government from iterfering in these matters, so if you have respect for the laws of this land, you will oppose said interferrence.
I do respect our Constitution. -- Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- and neither should States.
I've never contended that, anywhere or anytime. -- God bless America & In God We Trust are just fine with me.
-- Does this mean we are not a part of the United States? Is the bond between our states and the US dissolved? Do we need to form a Confederacy? Or is the ACLU just full of knockwurst?
Which is it?
Which? -- 'It' [the 'war' for & against religion] is a bunch of political hype from all factions, the way I see it.
"Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI."
and the law of land says the Federals cannot dictate to us, the law makes no mention of the states, and thus all the stuff about "Separation of church and state" are invalid.
and the law of land says the Federals cannot dictate to us,
Of course they can't, - nevertheless, - the Constitution remains our supreme Law of the Land.
and thus all the stuff about "Separation of church and state" are invalid.
Not true.. If a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the Law of the Land, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
"Not true.. If a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the Law of the Land, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI."
No, the Federal government is forbidden to get involved. THAT is the law of the land. You can't break a law to enforce it.
No, the Federal government is forbidden to get involved. THAT is the law of the land.
"Congress shall make no law" does not mean the "-- Federal government is forbidden to get involved. --" THAT is ~not~ the law of the land, it's what you imagine it to be.
You can't break a law to enforce it.
Obviously not. No one here is saying you can.
Round you go in circular reasoning. Fed courts have no real power to "impose" their opinions. State officials are free to fight & appeal such impositions, and ignore them while doing so.
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.