Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nikos1121
The best argument against this "wall of separation" progressive revisionist history is to point out that the best way to figure out what the "establishment clause" intends is to simply look at how the Framers, who wrote it, behaved immediately afterward. And to do so blows away all of this insanity about public funding and churches.

First, of course, is the famous quote by John Adams, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This one quote alone clearly explains the foundational religious principle undergirding the Constitution, which is that a constitution which gives its people unprecedented freedom will only result in anarchy, unless those people are self-restrained by an external moral code (i.e., one given by God and therefore not subject to their own selfish whims). A people (as we have in large part today) that discards this wisdom and instead simply wants to justify their basest urges will eventually find that the "utopia" they have created has become so corrupt and violent that only an authoritarian dictatorship can restore order.

Second, the authors of the "establishment clause" and their contemporaries seemed to have no problem with holding Christian church services in the Senate chambers, and even the chambers of the Supreme Court! As President, Thomas Jefferson (you know, that guy the left portrays as a "deist") had a reserved seat and was said to rarely miss a service. Well, if the Constitution permits holding church services in the capitol itself, then CLEARLY it permits religious institutions to receive "public" funds.

Third, the early Congress appropriated federal funds to purchase bibles and hire preachers to evangelize the Indian tribes. And the Massachusetts state constitution, upon which the federal constitution is largely based, STILL contains a provision for the use of state funds to hire preachers, because of the necessity of religious instruction to exercising good citizenship (I'm paraphrasing that last part, don't have it in front of me at the moment).

So obviously, this relatively recent revisionism is a complete and utter lie, promulgated by progressives because of nothing more than their desire to abolish God from public life (and private life, if they can). All of their political craziness really boils down to nothing more than their rebellion against God. They are trying desperately to create a Man-centered governing regime, in the vain belief that it will "free" them. On the contrary, pursuit of their agenda will only result in bondage, pain, and death.

13 posted on 06/26/2017 2:05:45 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: noiseman
The best argument against this "wall of separation" progressive revisionist history is to point out ...

... the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. In effect, it says that just as Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a state religion, neither shall it prohibit a religion from being practiced.

"Being practiced" doesn't mean going to a steepled building on Sunday and singing hymns. At least to Christians, it means living a Gospel, a life in accord with the Holy Spirit, and at peace with God's holy word. Forcing a tradesman to support the abomination of homosexuality is to deny him the right to practice his religion. And all so a couple of fags can have a cake at their perverted ritual, a cake they can get a hundred other places.

This ruling must be struck down on the basis that it defies the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

20 posted on 06/26/2017 3:04:40 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson