The Origin of "Separation of Church and State" (good article)

http://www.myfathershouse.com/Separation%20of%20Church%20and%20State.html ^

[mrs tiggywinkle]

Thanks for posting this...be back later to read the full article.

[So Cal Rocket]

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

Ahhhh... but look at a document where these words CAN be found:

The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(The Former Soviet Union)
Adopted October 7, 1977

Article 52 [Religion]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

[INVAR]

Excellent! Thank you!

When you read the plain words of the Constitution and take Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in proper context - it becomes clear that Jefferson understood the entire meaning and intent of the 1st Amendment : 'Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion...." due to the precise fact that ONLY Congress and the legislature have the power to MAKE LAW.

This is because the legislatures are BEHOLDEN to you and I, The People. If they vote outside of the values of their constituencies, they can be voted out and new representatives can be installed to safeguard our liberties.

It is why Adams said: ""Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"

The Judiciary has no such accountability to We the People. They were to rule upon matters of WRITTEN LAW passed by the legislatures, not to MAKE LAW by "intepreting" what they think it should or want it to mean.

But Judicial Activism is now considered law, mainly due to the fact that most of us are ignorant of what the plain words written on parchement actually say - let alone what they mean.

Like everything else - We the People have left the running of this nation to the "professionals", and have not heeded our Founder's warnings about the nature of power and government.

[Jaded]

Thanks, great article.

[OXENinFLA]

Read later bump

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[almcbean]

Also keep in mind that Jefferson was not involved in writing the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. He was ambassador to France and living over there. To use his words, especially when penned over 10 years after, to interpret the Constitution is ludicrous.

[f.Christian]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101

To: lugsoul

Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.
Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to
restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).



129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...
ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

[RobbyS]

Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.

except it is founded solely one the ability of the power to coerce.

[f.Christian]

fC ...

The rag head taliban in America is the aclu ...

just like the ones in mecca - afghanistan - nkorea ---

blowing up thousand year old Buhdda statues !

BACKGROUND

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times."

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

... link below !

eas ...

"No. The ACLU says the First Amendment protects their right to free speech (( atheism )) , which the Second does not protect your right to keep and bear arms."

"I was going to say they don't understand the concept that the militia is made up of the very people referenced in the text of the amendment. But they do get this, and very well. They simply know that when the people are completely disarmed, there is no impediment to the ... ACLU becoming --- a latter-day Politburo."

"I'm telling you ... gather weapons and ammo now (( knowledge - associates - VOTES )) --- while you still can."

50 posted on 03/28/2002 4:02 PM PST by Euro-American Scum

[RobbyS]

The main reason I support the 2nd Amendment is not that I personally desire to own weapons but that it recognizes the right of the state as an autonomous republic to defend itself.

[OXENinFLA]

it recognizes the right of the state as an autonomous republic to defend itself.

I've never looked at the 2nd in that light.

Makes sense though.

What is you opinion of CA trying to pass a law making the .50cal illegal?

------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the state wants to limit the caliber size.

Welcome to Animal Farm.

[RobbyS]

Regulatoion rather than a fat ban would seem to be more appropriate. I think a ban can be justified only if there is real danger of someone raising a private army and equipping it with .50s. These things ARE pretty fearsome.

[INVAR]

Welp, you can't stop tanks with a .22.

As to a ban itself.....the 2nd Amendment prohibits any such infringement.

But when did the law ever matter to the power-hungry?

[RobbyS]

I think it prohibist a federal ban.The whole Bill of Rights is designed to limit federal power. The state can do it. That is if the theory of incorporation has not been extended to the states

[tpaine]

I think it prohibist a federal ban.The whole Bill of Rights is designed to limit federal power. The state can do it. That is if the theory of incorporation has not been extended to the states
16 -robb-


Under the supremacy clause of Art VI, our BOR's has always applied to all government, -- fed/state/local.
From our beginnings people in new territories were subject to territorial law, administered by the congress, which was under the BOR's restrictions.

After statehood, it would hardly be rational to claim a mans freedom of speech or RKBA's could now be prohibited by the new states legislators.
CA entered our union without a RKBA's provision in their state constitution. They now claim the 'right' to prohibit certain rifles because of that oversight.
They are wrong.
Don't swallow the 'states rightists' bull.
They are statists, not conservatives.

[RobbyS]

The Bill of Rights was not applied to the States until the 1920s and under the terms of the 14th Amendment equal protection clauses in accordance with the incorporation doctrine. The practical effect has been to negate the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[tpaine]

Yep, that's the current 'line' from the statists. Why do you want to swallow their hook?

Why do you WANT to claim a mans freedom of speech or RKBA's can be prohibited by a states legislators?
Makes no sense to me.

[RobbyS]

Freedom of speech, no. Gun control, yes. By the way, the right to vote has also traditionally been a province of the state. Back in the 1850s,the Irish used to march off the boats in New York to be registered by Tammany hacks. So the bill that Davis just signed, which entitles illegal to drivers Licenses will also entitle them to vote, and that is nothing new.