Posted on 04/30/2005 7:44:30 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Religious conservatives, emboldened by President Bush's re-election and confident of their political clout, are not interested in merely overhauling the judiciary. Ideally, they are seeking a judiciary that would remove the wall of separation between church and state.
This ambition is stated clearly in numerous legal briefs currently on file at the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a pending case; they seek removal of "a Berlin wall" that is "out of step with this nation's religious heritage." In fact, their leaders argue in interviews that the church-state barrier is a "myth" invented by the high court in 1947, thanks to a twisted interpretation of our founding documents.
All told, there is a growing concern, even among some conservative analysts, that the religious right's Republican allies might pay a political price for their close collaboration. These analysts, for example, cite an April 14 remark by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who assailed the judiciary for trying "to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution."
Glenn Simpson, a Tennessee law professor who runs the conservative Instapundit blog, wrote recently: "The Republicans' weakness is that people worry that they're the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they're now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life."
(Excerpt) Read more at sanluisobispo.com ...
I highly recommend reading the entire article to get the full flavor.
As "NEWS" they clearly are trying to portray Republicans as if they were all some Christian Fanatics would would like to institute a theocracy, and Christianity as official religion, trying to frighten people, so they won't support the Senate Republicans in their attempts to end the filibuster on the judges.
The usual Dem scare tactic, but to put this as news, is really beyond even the MSM-s usual extreme bias.
..There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"..
This would be a disgusting piece of journalism, even if it was just an editorial. To print it as "news" is completely unacceptable.
Either church and state are separate, or they are joined in some way.
Which is it?
When democrats do something about democrat politicians going into black churches and making political sermons we will then know they are serious about the so-called separation of church and state. Until they do that it will be obvious they are just blowing smoke.
Well, there is a separation of church and state - the Federal government can't proclaim any official religion. However, the liberals are attempting to make the separation of church and state the same thing as the complete separation of church and society. Clearly an overreaching interpretation of the establishment clause.
Indeed - the hypocrisy is just overwhelming for the liberal side.
Yikes, making their point!
Our founders intended to separate religion and the state, not God and the state. This is why they prohibited a "national church"(religion) but preserved the principles laid down by God as essential to a free and moral society.
The religious right does not want to remove a judically created imaginary wall separating the church and the state. They want to remove a judicial wall that separates the people, who are religious, from the state.
What liberals aren't saying is that THEY want to install a new religion: ATHEISM, as a state religion.
They want to? They've pretty much succeeded. I'm looking forward to some fresh conservative SCOTUS judges to chip away at the freedom FROM religion wall.
AMEN
The basis for separation claim is an improper Supreme Court ruling on the following exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson . . . .
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson
(For the latest FBI forensic research on Thomas Jefferson's letter click here. For an exemplary analysis of the context of this exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson, see Daniel L Dreisbach's "'Sowing Useful Truths and Principles': The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the 'Wall of Separation'" in the Journal of Church and State, Vol. 39, Summer 1997.)
The address of the Danbury Baptist 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 millions 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 Unite States. And though the 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 is 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, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.
But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] 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 acknowledgments, 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, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative 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 sentiment 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--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill 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 the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise 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,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }
*A cite for this letter could read:
Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.
Jefferson's Reply
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment 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, and 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 and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
•A cite for this letter could read:
•Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282.
Thank you for your reply. I am wiser for having read it.
Could you point by point tell me what it is the Christian Conservative Right does want and doesn't want. When briefs contain the words "Berlin Wall", those are words designed to inflame their followers. So let's get it out in the open. What is wanted and what isn't. Then the abiblity to smear Christian Conservatives will be diminished.
Oh, you are so wrong. Ever listened to activist Christian talk radio? Not the shortwave stuff, but the stuff on the mainstream Christian stations. If you haven't, listen and listen carefully, especially to the talk shows.
The talk shows are where the activists and the grass rooters hang out. Please, listen carefully.
I'm aware of that. I also am against religion and politics mingling to the extreme SOME seem to want.
Let me guess, they won't tell you.
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.