[Bikers4Bush]

Bump for later.

[CitadelArmyJag]

Amen! Now convince the left of this fact and we are all set!

[lilylangtree]

Thanks. I've had a number of debates of this issue with the opposition quoting the ACLU's wrong-headed position that's so prevalent today.

[KFAT]

interesting article.

I knew that the "doctrine of separation of church and state" was a canard, but I did not know the history of it.

Thank you.

You may wish to read my thoughts on militant secularism at redbay.blospot.com

[SE Mom]

Thanks AGAIN TG- you are FULL of useful info today- much appreciated by this freeper:)

[Norman Bates]

The First Amendment simply means that the government will not establish an official state religion as for example the Church of England in Britain, which many American immigrants previously suffered under. It has nothing to do with divorcing religion and religious sentiments from government.

[BluSky]

Bump for Church

[retiredcpo]

I've known this for some time. However the ACLU and their ilk have told their lie so often that most believe it true. Hopefully, W will be able to appoint a few pure jurists to the SCOTUS and set us back on course.

[Houmatt]

Allow me to clarify something:

Instead of citing the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided instead to use a letter written by a man who was neither at the drafting nor ratification of the document. Not only that, the letter had been written a full decade after the fact.

It is also worth noting that in doing so, they created law from whole cloth, something the SCOTUS does not have the authority to do. As the Constitution they chose to ignore spelled out, creating law is something exclusive to the Legislative Branch of government, otherwise known as Congress.

This makes the ruling that created this church/state seperation wholly unconstitutional.

[ssterns]

"The 'wall of separation between church and state' phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion."

This is one part of the "anti-separation of church and state" argument that I have always found not just unconvincing, but misleading. People of faith, as evidenced by the recent election, influence politics and government all the time, and this is as it should be. The President can quote scripture in speeches, include homilies, etc. Congress can start each day with a prayer. Religious people can elect religious legislators who shape law based on religious principle. Happens all the time.

Some of us who still advocate this "separation" of church and state do so based on the idea that government should not be in the business of advancing a specific religion in its official acts. Christians are free to shape and influence government, but government has no business in shaping or influencing the religious faith, Christian or otherwise, of the people. More plainly put, government should not be in the religion business.

One of the arguments I've rarely seen well addressed over such issues as school prayer is on what religion should such prayers be based. The answer is usually either "we're a Christian nation, so prayers should be non-sectarian Christian prayers" or "prayers should reflect the faith of the community." The problem is that like it or not, America is a pluralistic nation, and while most Americans profess to be Christian, nearly every "community" will contain people of different faiths or different brands of Christianity. Whose faith prevails? This is one area where "majority rules" doesn't hold. Just as Christians would be understandably outraged if schools required the reading of Mulsim prayers or perhaps Dyanetics, others may be outraged by similar treatment of Christian prayers.

Federalist arguments that the states are or should be free to regulate these matters have a better provenance but the history is still complex. But the so-called "wall of separation of church and state," to my mind, in no way inhibits Christians or other people of faith from influencing government.

Of course, I've never quite gotten the apparent need of some Christians for government to legitimize their faith by supporting Christian prayer or religious displays.

Cheers.

[Sam Cree]

*

[Zeroisanumber]

Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed November 4th, 1796:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty was ratified by Congress and signed by then-President John Adams, who proudly proclaimed it to the country.

[BedRock]

Excellent article;

The first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights are most certainly, if read by most anyone with some common understanding of the English language, aimed squarely at protecting the rights of the citizens.

The Ninth Amendment states that no matter what the order of the rights named in the Constitution, whether it is the first or the last, their enumeration doesn't matter as to their relevance or importance.

You stated;

"This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [Tenth Amendment]. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority."

Very well stated...

The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states:

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.

Imagine that!!! Granting full power to the (1)states or (2)the people on any matter that is not clearly delegated by the Constitution through pre-existing, agreed upon law(Constitution) to the Federal Government, which, by the way, can only be changed by a 3/4 majority vote of...

GUESS WHO!!!!

The STATES, which are controlled by, THE PEOPLE...

So why has this gotten so out of hand??

Maybe we all need to remind those on Capitol Hill of the Tenth Amendment.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark for later

[Just mythoughts]

Great post. Liberals do like to build 'walls' for their self protection and promotion. Those walls of Jericho come to mind.

[Vision]

Wanna watch a liberal cry. Show them these letters. The only two letters with anything to do with a "separation". The first is a letter from a Danbury minister to Jefferson, then Jefferson's reply. Basically the minister is concerned the new government is powerful enough to start making laws effecting religion. Jefferson says there is a separation, and the government cannot legislate on religious issues.


The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of

Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,

Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere.



Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.



Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people.



And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson



To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor..."

Glaring and amateurish mistake made by the author.

Jefferson was in fact quoting Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island:

To his credit, although Williams first called himself a Baptist, he later described himself as a "seeker," that is, a nondenominational Christian seeking spiritual truth, which is about as close to Unitarianism as one could come. And Roger Williams was the first to use the term later adopted by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists: "wall of separation." Like Jefferson, Williams argued that such a separation benefited religion as well as government:

When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World.[6]

Roger Williams died at Providence between 16 January and 16 April 1683, still believing that good walls make good neighbors. -- Source

To attribute the metaphor to Jefferson is incorrect.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP