Thank you David for your glowing comment to Part One. The only thing I might disagree with is the statement:
First Amendment. Second, and an important point — the Bill of Rights — only amplify the Constitution, those ten Amendments do not alter it.
For the most part the statement is true; however the word “Amendment” does entail amending something that is there. Frankly I am not a Constitutional expert. I can’t vouch that the Bill of Rights amplifies or amends any part of the Constitution document. I am guessing though if I pursued the point I could find something that amends to go along with the amplification.
At any rate Dougindeap also commented on Part One which I posted previous to David’s comment below. Dougindeap stubbornly maintains his position that the separation of Church and State is as much a part of the Constitution as the separation of Branch Powers and with enumerated (though as he points out not specified) checks and balances. The enumerated checks and balances are in the description of the powers rather than specifying what is checked and/or balanced.
David’s Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1
John, thank you for the article. I think the big problem is the disconnect between the presuppositions of people and the facts of history as they have been misguided through leftist propaganda. The states at our founding had state religions, churches sponsored by state taxes. These faded over time but were never barred and could return today if the people so choose.
However, we do have a separation of church (the bureaucracy) and the state at the federal level, as no official church (entity or bureaucracy) can be established per the First Amendment. Second, and an important point — the Bill of Rights — only amplify the Constitution, those ten Amendments do not alter it. The Bill of Rights are only stating in negative terms what the Constitution already says in its silence.
This does not apply however to “the church” (the people) and the state. What might be a better way to form this argument is to point out that the values of the individual — the virtues of morality and virtue — found in their religious faith are never barred from influencing the power of the state. Liberalism (a faith based ideology) is used all the time, yet because of our connection to “the church” those on the right are thought to be by default prevented from having our views and values represented at the table of government. This is completely false as you so eloquently show. How sad that our Republic of Virtue rooted in the moral foundations of Christianity and Western civilization is the only view discriminated against by every single group — including those liberal Christians who should know better.
The First Amendment — far from excluding the “church” (the people of faith) it is promoting it, it is advocating for it, by proclaiming that the Federal government cannot discriminate for one sect over another or silence it any way through “law” vis a vis Congress shall make NO law establishing or prohibiting. The Christian moral view of law and its implementation was the view of the Founding Fathers and assumed to be the view of future generations. Without it they knew full well the Republic could not stand. And on that point where do we stand? We have been rudderless for generations and are now sinking by taking on the flood of immorality and calling it good. This stuff is not very hard to understand — unless you are a liberal politician, professor, Hollywood elite or mind numbed media personality.
Thank you for all you valuable work!
Edited by John R. Houk