The Idiots Guide To The Separation Of Church And State, Part One

http://rightwingwizkid.blogspot.com/2010/12/idiots-guide-to-separation-of-church.html ^ | 12-5-10 | Semper Fi Parents

[Semper Fi Parents]

Once again, it's that time of year when people try and use the United States Constitution to raise a ruckus over any type of Christmas display in or around a taxpayer-funded building, such as a courthouse or a public school, claiming such a display violates the Constitutional provision regarding the separation of church and state.

It's ironic how these hypocrites only cite the Constitution when they feel that they can use it to promote their anti-Christian agenda.

And in the spirit of the season of Good Will Towards Men, we feel it is our duty to clear things up for them so that they stop making fools of themselves.

[Retain Mike]

Arguments that “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution rely upon premeditated ignorance. Alexander Hamilton gave clear instructions on how to read this document in the Federalist Papers.

Manifest tenor and not spirit is the operative concept when he discussed the Judiciary. In Federalist Paper 78, he declared the duty of the Judiciary was to act according to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. In Federalist Paper 81, Hamilton says the plan does not empower the national courts to interpret laws according to the “spirit” of the Constitution.

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Any middle-schooler who diagrams this sentence and consults the meaning of the words would perceive a one way screen and not a wall of separation. Congress is prohibited from acting upon the religious freedom of citizens. Nothing prohibits citizens from directly relying upon their religion to influence how they will be governed.

People chanting a separation mantra must fabricate their illusion from the words of Thomas Jefferson who was overseas during Constitution deliberations. They ignore those of Alexander Hamilton who was part of the process and told us how to read the document.

[loboinok]

Bump

[Alex Murphy]

Welcome to Free Republic!

[RobbyS]

Well, I doubt that Jefferson would agree with the ACLU interpretation of the constitution. Even though he was theologically liberal, he regarded Christian morality as foundational to our society. He even attended Sunday school in the Capitol building. The root of the matter was that Hugo Black got away with a revisionist interpretation of the First Amendment in 1947. Mr. Justice Story, an associate and friend of John Marshall said in his exposition of the Constitution(1840) that the Founders found never have accepted neutrality as the proper attitude of government toward religion.

[Machfour]

Proponents of Separation of church and state never seem to acknowledge the facts. Jefferson’s metaphor from the Danbury letter was obscure for some 160 years and was then introduced in 1947. Being out of context, with a goal in mind, to reverse the church and state relationship.

[circlecity]

Given that Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting or ratifying the 1st amendment (or any of the bill or rights) I’m not sure what relevance his letters would have in the first place.

[Machfour]

Exactly, considering the letter was written some 10 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The fact that it was not an official government document, just a private letter, doesn't seem to hinder those with an ax to grind.

[Retain Mike]

i agree. I am sure Jefferson would like to come back and challenge Hugo Black to a duel. Thank you for the Justice Story note. That is new information for me.