Separation of Church and State: The Big Lie

America's Godly Heritage (Video from Wallbuilders)

[Navydog]

The following statements are from “America’s Godly Heritage”, a video from Wall Builders. I wish to give credit to them for this wonderful video for anyone wanting to know the truth about America’s history and “Separation of Church and State”.

[PhilipFreneau]

Ok.....but the Federal Government, by refuseing to take a stand on an issue, leaves the public to believe that it's legal. All it takes is for 1 state to legalize something. Then they move on to the next state and say "well it's legal over there, why can't we have it here?" Then they use the same precedents, examples and referances as was used in the first state to ultamately force it on another. Usually through the Federal Supreme Court that left it up to the States in the first place. This has happened many times before!

Navydog, did you ever bother to read the 1st Amendment?

[american spirit]

When you bring up the concept of bureaucrats being involved with church activities, isn't that what's happened to most churches after they acquired the IRS approved 501C-3 tax status? Many folks don't realize that these churches have relinquished their sovereignty in exchange for the privilege of certain IRS/fedgov approved tax advantages.

With that in mind, it's hard to accept this theory of separation of church and state when we have pastors of such churches constantly looking over their collective shoulders to make sure their sermons and programs do not run contrary to the fedgov codes associated with preserving their hallowed tax exempt status.

[Modernman]

When you bring up the concept of bureaucrats being involved with church activities, isn't that what's happened to most churches after they acquired the IRS approved 501C-3 tax status?

Technically, that's true. Though, we all know that the rules don't apply(or aren't enforced) when it comes to certain politically correct black churches.

However, you've hit the nail on the head- involvement with government corrupts and damages religion.

[antiRepublicrat]

The problem is still that covet doesn't mean to take by fraud, grift, artiface, or anything remotely similar. Coveting is the act of wanting, desiring, et al. See synonyms at jealousy and desire, not fraud.

Good point, which would make that commandment pretty anti-capitalist, and therefore quite unamerican.

[Navydog]

Duhh....you mean this one?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All I am saying is that if they are going to leave it up to the states, why do they get involved in it when it gets brought back in front of the Court again when the State in question doesn't want to legalize what another state has?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....Congress!!! Not the Supreme Court!!! Separation of powers anyone?

[Navydog]

I will make one last post on this subject, then you can argue about it untill you puke.

Matthew 12:30 - "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus Christ


“As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes National sins by National calamities.”

George Mason (On the floor of the Constitutional Convention)

[tpaine]

Navydog wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

Separation of powers anyone?

_____________________________________


Separation of church & state, anyone?
See my 'Rehnquist' post at #67.

The 1st's establishment clause clearly shows the intent to separate church & state.

Rehnquist admits as much.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> All I am saying is that if they are going to leave it up to the states, why do they get involved in it when it gets brought back in front of the Court again when the State in question doesn't want to legalize what another state has?

The Federal Government, to my knowledge, has never passed a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, with the exception of some perversions of the "non-profit" status during the Johnson administration (IIRC). All prohibitions against the free exercise of religion have come from usurpations by the courts (state and federal). Since the 1st Amendment prohibits only the congress, and the congress has made no law, the rulings by the courts in recent years amount to creating law out of thin air.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> The 1st's establishment clause clearly shows the intent to separate church & state . . . Rehnquist admits as much.

But what many do not realize (or don't want to know) is the term "state" refers to the central (federal) government, not the individual states.

[tpaine]

Sir Gawain wrote:

William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth


______________________________________

From Rehnquist's conclusion, at your # 63 link :

"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one.

The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others.

Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, >>> States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects.<<<

As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means."


______________________________________


Gawain, how can you claim these words above "totally destroy" the 'establishment clause'?

-- Rehnquist admits that neither Fed nor State can assert "a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others."
In other words, they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"..
That ~is~ a separation of church from state, --- and Rehnquist admits as much.
67 -tpaine-

_____________________________________


PhilipFreneau wrote:

>> The 1st's establishment clause clearly shows the intent to separate church & state . . . Rehnquist admits as much.

But what many do not realize (or don't want to know) is the term "state" refers to the central (federal) government, not the individual states.


______________________________________


You reject Rehnquists clear words:

>>> "States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects."<<<

Why?

[Navydog]

That's My point exactly!!!......But, what can be done about it? And why.....OH WHY hasn't our beloved Republican Party done anything?

[PhilipFreneau]

You reject Rehnquists clear words: "States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects." Why?

If he said that, he is wrong. The Constitution clearly does not prohibit the states in this matter. Even Thomas Jefferson, and adamant "separationist", admitted that point in an 1808 letter, with this statement, "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."

[PhilipFreneau]

>> That's My point exactly!!!......But, what can be done about it? And why.....OH WHY hasn't our beloved Republican Party done anything?

They are too few conservatives and too many RINO's.

[Navydog]

You mean simi-liberal conservatives who don't really believe in moral or religious values but by the same token are non-Communist in other words are socialist and don't realize it. That describes way too many people in this country today. Especially on the Democrat side. They are known as Centralist. On the republican side they are known as Liberal conservatives, but the end result is the same. That is why only roughly half the population actually votes.

Many people are confused and frankly sick of the mud slinging and out right tired of the political system as it stands today.

There is a Socialist propaganda TV show that will be appearing this fall called "The Candidate" it is a reality show that is, for all practical purposes, to show how out of date and out of step with modern times our political system is.

Do you realize that in the 70's there was a push from some elected officials in congress and the House for a move to a Parliamentary System of Government stateing the very same reason? That would have meant trashing our constitution and re-writting it into the Socialist type of Government that they have in our Northern Neighbor, Canada.

Make no mistake about it.....I AM NO SOCIALIST like Moore as some people in this forum have said......I AM A REPUBLICAN by true definition.

re·pub·lic: An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. Source: Dictionary.com Thank you very much!

I do not support the UN....I do not support surrendering the sovereignty of the United States to Communist backed foreigners into a godless New World Order.

Call me what you will, but in every sense of the word, I am a Patriot who believes in the right of every person to pursue Life, Liberty, and happiness under the protection of the United States constitution that was written by men who were willing to stake their lives in that pursuit. As I do now.

As I said in a private post to someone else in this forum. This is not a game! You cannot root for your party like your favorite Football team. When the people we elect stop doing the will of the people as a majority and appease the will of the minority the voice of the people falls on deaf ears. Who will listen?

Some weeks ago I posted something called "Communist agenda in America" to my surprise, it got far less replies than this posting. Why?

Because, in their blindness, so many people have believed the false assumption that Communism is dead, due to the fall of Communism in the former Soviet Union. Make no mistake, the Communist machine is still in place in Russia. They have only loosened the noose to ensnare Europe which is being accomplished as we speak. "Keep your friends close and you enemies closer."

The current governments of Germany and France are puppets of the Russian Government. Once Europe is secured, what is left? America?.....Hardly.....we are already slaves to the Socialist debt system that rules the world today through the World Bank, The Federal Reserve System, the Universal Monetary Fund. The Inflation - Deflation of currency, stock markets are all controlled through the "Gold Standard". Remember the Golden Rule.....whoever has the Gold....makes the rules!!

When you hear the phrase "National debt"...who are we in debt to? The American people are the hardest working, highest producing people on the face of the planet. We have the highest GNP of any nation on Earth! The people have no real wealth....we have paper currency and worthless metal coins of nickle and copper. Or worse....imaginary wealth through electronic debit cards and credit cards. This is accomplished through a Very few VERY WEALTHY people of the world. These people would make Bill Gates look like a charity case.

The Income Tax is Illegal.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913 (by a vote of 298 to 60 in the House of Representatives, and 43 to 25 in the Senate). After the vote, Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr. (father of the famous aviator) told Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth ... When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized ... The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation and deflation whenever the trusts want deflation..." The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) was then able to manipulate the money supply. In the six years prior to the 1929 Stock Market Crash, the Fed increased (or inflated) the money supply 62%, inducing unwise investments and market speculation by the public. When everything was in place, the bankers, who had been financing market speculation, called in their "24 hr. broker call loans", precipitating the Crash.

This is nothing less that financial blackmail to produce the political results that the Money Power wants. There are many more documents to support this throughout the later half of the 20th century. Including the false energy crisis of the 70's.

I'm sure I'm going to be baned from FR after this post but that's ok.....at least I've said my peace and told the truth.

[tpaine]

PhilipFreneau wrote:

If he said that, he is wrong. The Constitution clearly does not prohibit the states in this matter.


______________________________________


"If"?
-- Here are his words. Read them yourself:


William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

[PhilipFreneau]

Rehnquist was also wrong in his support for asset forfeitures; but at least in one of those instances he admitted on national TV the asset forfeiture law in question was "not too unconstitutional".

[stainlessbanner]

It's not 'stated'

end of story.