Just what would the God-haters of our society have us to do about such displays on government property? I see them coming to smash the headstones of Arlington now.....
Posted on 07/25/2003 4:59:40 PM PDT by Bad Eagle
The founding fathers of the United States of America certainly had no concept of the “separation of church and state.” Yet the idea is held dear by many people today. The modern notion is nevertheless greatly mistaken if not wholly opposite the intent of the original framers of the Constitution.
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not occur in the United States Constitution, nor in the Declaration of Independence, nor in any major historical, political document in the history of the United States. The very words “separation,” “church,” and “state” do not appear in the First Amendment.
The phrase occurred in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, on January 1, 1802. Jefferson was writing to church leaders in Danbury, Connecticut, the Danbury Baptist Association. The Baptists had heard rumors that the Congregationalist Church, another major American denomination, was becoming the national church of America.
Jefferson wrote: “I contemplate with solemn 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 and State.
The founding fathers intended to avoid any socio-political circumstance as was created by the Church of England, or the Church of Rome, both of which cruelly persecuted all dissent. The history of Europe was a history of Christians killing other Christians, in the name of Christ. This resulted from the simple fact that the Church had state power to enforce its values.
The US Constitution protects the American people from any such religious state.
However, the founding fathers had no such concept that the state should disallow or forbid religion in any circumstance. State laws prohibiting the practice any religion in public buildings, public schools, or in public places, are a bizarre distortion of the Constitution’s intent.
The fathers and their immediate descendents were all very religious and recommended the practice of the Biblical faith in all circumstances, particularly in public office and as the basis of all education. David Barton has made a major national effort to remind America of the nature of the values held by the founders of the country. The young Kyle Williams includes a chapter in Seen and Heard (WND, 2003) on the issue of church and state He clearly demonstrates the religious nature of early America leadership by just quoting from state constitutions.
So, why is the distorted, false political doctrine of “separation of church and state” so deeply popular? Who is behind it, and why?
There are a variety of social organizations and individuals who have come to regard this mistaken doctrine with ‘religious’ sentiment. It has become sacred to them. It is their present protection, and their hope of continued existence.
Minorities such as American Indians (many of whom practice non-Biblical religions), certain protestant sects such as Seventh-day Adventists, and certainly Jewish people, and now Muslims and Hindus, and PC “non-theists” all feel that without the functioning concept of separation of church and state in America, their religions would be curtailed, repressed, and finally disallowed.
But there are also a good number of mainstream Christians and middle Americans who believe in keeping religion out of public office, public school, and public places.
It isn’t so much that these groups fear they would be commanded to do something their conscience forbids, but that the state would forbid them to do something their conscience demands.
The perfect confusion of the issue, however, is from the Roman Catholic Church. Infamous for centuries of religious persecution of dissenters, the Vatican nevertheless declares: “the human person has a right to religious freedom,” and that this right “must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.” (The Documents of Vatican II, ch.1)
In a personal letter to me, Archbishop John Whalen of Hartford, Connecticut (d.1992) said this declaration was meant to protect Catholics from persecution under governments which repressed religion, and never to advocate that freedom of religion meant anyone should be anything other than Catholic.
In a sense, all the supporters of separation of church and state use the idea in a self-serving manner, to protect themselves, the practice of their own religions, and their institutions. (It’s only the Jews who will frequently go to bat for someone else’s religious rights.)
Religious plurality may demean the idea of one true faith, nevertheless the state was never to command any one religion, nor ever to forbid it’s practice.
Massachusetts had taxpayer funded churches until the mid 1830s. Daniel Webster argued against an attempt to change the state constitution to prohibit the practice in the early 1820s.
Just what would the God-haters of our society have us to do about such displays on government property? I see them coming to smash the headstones of Arlington now.....
The facts are here.
(choke)
Only a matter of time. A WWI veteran's memorial is under attack in California:
Alternate suggested for Mojave Cross (take down your Christian cross and put up what I want)
Catholic BTTT!
James R. McClure Jr.
Sir Knight of Columbus
LOL!...the writer never heard of Leo Pfeffer or Emel'ian Yaroslavskii, has he?
Why do you suppose the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ."? It's not because they considered "Congress" synonymous with "government"--for surely you know that Robert E. Lee suffered no such confusion even "fourscore and seven" years later.It is only post-Civil War that the First Amendment is applied to the states. The Second Amendment, inconsistently, is not applied to the states, even yet. Just think what it would mean to our understanding of the First Amendment if the jurisprudence of the Second Amendment were applied to it! That would give you a much better idea of what the First Amendment actually did mean, in the founding era.
Maybe so but it's no longer working. A practicing Catholic can no longer be approved federal judge in this country.
We're up against the "religion is the opiate of the masses" crowd. They would prefer to see our rights not come from God but from them. They have twisted "religous freedom" to mean freedom from religion.
They are trying to eliminate the competetion and I think they are winning.
Interestingly enough, Rhode Island was mentioned when the founders were trying to phrase the first amendment in such a way that "establishment" would never be construed to censor religious expression (as you and liberal judges now do).
Annals of Congress. August 15, 1789You want to separate church and state? Fine with me. Repeal the first amendment. Pass laws censoring religious expression. Throw people in jail for violating your laws if you wish. Excute the faithful as they did in the Soviet Union if that is your desire. But do it honestly. Do it democratically. Don't pretend the first amendment says what it doesn't. Don't play Orwellian mind-rot games on the American public. Stand up for your beliefs and put them before the citizens of this country for a vote.Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words (of the first amendment) might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understoon the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia: but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations in the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or bulding of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishement.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, thereffore , the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.
Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establsh a religion to which they would comple others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Honest conservatives with recognize that freedom of religion is for every citizen of these United States. Will it upset me? Sure. Can I refuse them? Certainly not, or I can't lay any claim to a belief in religious freedom.
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.