The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

A Heaven or Hell Decision


Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’

Intro by John R. Houk

Author: Justin O. Smith

Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country.

Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton InstitutePower Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.

JRH 9/11/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.” – Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one’s beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis “arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others,” because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between “one man and one woman”; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren’t the courts “adopting” their “policy” and agenda when they magically create “law” based on mythical “rights” that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

If anyone’s First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis’s rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what “law” did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is “the law” after Justice Kennedy “found” this imaginary “right” to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states’ rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis’s lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning’s abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with “Rowan County,” thus satisfying “the law”; however, Mat Staver’s comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these “marriage” licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else’s authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of “marriage” and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams – a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner – a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that “natural marriage cannot be redefined by government,” and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: “When you’re elected you don’t check your beliefs at the door. If you’re a true believer, you can’t separate that from who you are.” Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers’ beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one’s freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional “laws”, that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

The Truth about Separation of Church and State


1st Amendment

 

I have been several parts of a series entitled Disputing Separation Church/State (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). As of this writing I am up to Part Six and there is more to come. In doing the reading for these posts I came across a PDF designed as a brochure to dispute the Leftist influence that has move American Courts to stretch the interpretation of the First Amendment beyond the scope of its original intent. As I said I am still continuing my series on the subject; however below is an excellent to the point and relatively brief synopsis of reasons the present exploitation of the rule of law pertaining to the separation of Church and State is not a legal concept in the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

The Truth about Separation of Church and State

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution.

 

From PDF Brochure:

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

While the First Amendment clearly forbids the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

 

§  The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, when he responded to their concerns about state involvement in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression, but dealt with government’s interference in the public expression of faith.

 

 

§  It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

 

 

§  Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment.”

 

 

§  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”

 

 

§  The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean that they could not cooperate with each other.”

 

 

§  In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be ‘sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”

 

 

§  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, along with other groups hostile to religious freedom, have used Black’s wording to:

 

o   Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for Sunday worship services.

 

o   Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings.

 

o   Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or football games.

 

o   Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

 

o   Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”

 

o   Tell pastors that they do not have the right to speak freely from their pulpits applying Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections.

 

 

§  In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws… [It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

 

 

For almost four decades, the ACLU’s distortion of the “separation of church and state” went nearly unchallenged. Since 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has taken the ACLU and its allies head-on to expose this distortion and restore the original intent of U.S. Constitution with regard to religious freedom. Since its inception, Alliance Defending Freedom has helped to win many groundbreaking cases in defense of religious freedom and expression. The result is that the so-called “wall of separation,” erected by Hugo Black and others, is slowly starting to crumble. With your prayers and support, Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to tear down the “wall of separation.”

_______________________________

About – ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom is a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

 

Recognizing the need for a strong, coordinated legal defense against growing attacks on religious freedom, more than 30 prominent Christian leaders launched Alliance Defending Freedom in 1994. Over the past 18 years, this unique legal ministry has brought together thousands of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations that work tirelessly to advocate for the right of people to freely live out their faith in America and around the world.

 

Building an Alliance for Victory

 

Unlike any other legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to empower its allies and READ THE REST

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 4


1st Adam - 2nd Adam in Jesus Christ. Hans Baldung Grien

1st Adam/2nd Adam – Jesus Christ

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2014

 

If you choose to read the preceding parts simply click the links:

 

o   Part One

 

o   Part Two

 

o   Part Three

 

… In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)

 

Dougindeap is absolutely correct that the Founding Fathers separated the three branches of government as described in the U.S. Constitution: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. AND in separating those branches the Founders separated the powers thereof with checks and balances hoping to create a government in which the tyranny of despotism or the tyranny of democracy or judicial fiat could be avoided. The intention for the checks and balances was to give voting citizens the power to be a check and balance to the authority of the government vis-á-vis the Liberty of Civil and Individual Rights.

 

BUT Dougindeap presumes the enumeration of powers, checks and balances is also extended to the form of Church/State separate created by Judicial Fiat beginning with the Hugo Black majority opinion in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education:

 

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (See Part 3)

 

I went over the reasons that this judicial fiat was and is bogus in Part Three. Let’s suffice it to say here that Dougindeap’s assertion that Hugo Black’s 1947 majority opinion was not in the mind of the Founders as a rule of law prescribed as part of powers of government in a Church/State separated with checks and balances way back in 1789. Dougindeap lists five points he believes the Founding Fathers established within the Constitution separating Church and State with checks and balances in the same way the three branches of government were enumerated.

 

1. Establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity).

 

I guess we need to examine briefly the Constitution’s Preamble from Part One:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

In Part One I explained the reason I bold printed a portion of the Preamble:

 

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. …

 

THUS the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers understanding of the general welfare included morality. Since the Founding Fathers’ milieu was the 1760s through and a bit beyond the 1790s their concept of morality was not based on a Secular Humanism devoid of God and God the Creator’s morality established in the Bible. (Excerpted from “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”)

 

The Original Intent ergo, the Founding Fathers were empowering “We the people” in a secular order BUT under the moral guidance of the Christian God. That is strike one for Dougindeap’s point one.

 

The Signers of the U.S. Constitution that was then sent to the Thirteen Independent States under the Articles of Confederation establishes the importance the Founding Fathers tipped their hat to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible:

 

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of ConfederationBold emphasis mine) [Excerpted from the last paragraphs of “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”]

 

That is strike two for Dougindeap.

 

Hugo Black the writer of the majority of the opinion in Everson v. Board of Education stepped beyond the veil by using Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association offering reassurance to their concerns of being a minority Protestant Denomination in Connecticut in which Congregationalism was the Established Church of the State:

 

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, “Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals — that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions.” (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a “national Legislator” and they also understood that the “national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State.” (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson’s limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states. (The Myth Behind “Separation of Church and State”; By Mathew D. Staver; Liberty Counsel; © 2000)

 

Here is President Thomas Jefferson’s reassurance letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

 

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

 

Washington, January 1, 1802

 

Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

 

Th Jefferson


Jan. 1. 1802 (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282. On Wall Builders – “
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson”)

 

Hugo Black warped the intent of the Jefferson Letter pertaining to the Federal Government v. States’ Rights even though the Tenth Amendment specifically forbade the Federal Government to interfere in State legislation that did not usurp the prerogative of the U.S. Constitution:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Tenth Amendment)

 

Hugo Black excluded the Tenth Amendment and ignored the Founding Document the Declaration of Independence that was penned by Thomas Jefferson under the Continental Congress Committee drafting said declaration:

 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

… (Bold Emphasis Mine – The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription; The Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

 

The Declaration drafters of which Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of, indeed espoused the ideology that the enfranchised people experiencing unjust tyranny from a despot or despotic government have the right to change that government. BUT who does the Committee empowered to draft a Declaration of Independence claim gives the enfranchised people the right to throw off the bonds of tyranny? The empowerment comes from God Almighty:

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …”

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Strike three Dougindeap. Just as specified by the First Amendment that proclaims government under the law-making power of Congress cannot get involved in religion (i.e. Christianity) but mankind under the moral guidance of the Creator must influence government to keep government from devolving into a tyranny that permits society to use the guidance of human individuals to establish that which moral and good. Why? Because humanity is inherently a fallen nature that gravitates towards ungodly principles when the guiding principles of God are excluded.

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

 

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 12 – 21 NKJV)

 

End of Part Four

 

JRH 3/25/14

Please Support NCCR

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 3


Need SCOTUS Support Constitution

 

John R. Houk

© March 20, 2014

 

In Parts One and Two I examined Dougindeap’s first sentence in his assertion that the separation of Church/State is as embedded in the Constitution as is the paradigm of checks and balances. You can rehash those two parts on the reasons I do not agree with Dougindeap’s assertion.

 

For the sake of continuity here is Dougindeap’s first sentence followed by the second sentence in bold print:

 

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. (You can read Dougindeap’s full comment below the post “The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories”)

 

Really? Has the Supreme Court actually thoughtfully, authoritatively and repeatedly established as law that Separation of Church/State is a bedrock principle in the U.S. Constitution?

 

Evidently Dougindeap believes 1947 as a period of time to represent “thoughtfully, authoritatively and repeatedly”. The year 1947 is when Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education in which SCOTUS utilized the phrase,

 

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (Quote found at “The Truth about Separation of Church and State;” AllianceDefendingFreedom.org)

 

Let’s do some simple math. The Continental Congress published the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The U.S. Constitution became implemented as the rule of law in 1789. My calculator tells me there is a 158 years between 1947 and 1789. That span of years is hardly SCOTUS establishing “thoughtfully, authoritatively and repeatedly” separation of Church/State as a “bedrock principle of our Constitution”.

 

You have to wonder if the issue of Separation of Church/State arose on the SCOTUS docket prior to 1947 in which Justice Hugo Black used as stare decisis (Latin for to stand by things decided) to build his majority opinion.

 

I am fairly certain that Justice Hugo Black ignored an immense amount of Judicial decisions and the words of Justices written or spoken outside the scope SCOTUS. AND YET Justice Black based the opinion decision Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 on a non-judicial letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church that used the phraseology of the wall of separation between Church and State. The Danbury Baptist Church expressed concern that Connecticut was about to establish the Congregational Church as a State supported Church which would infer that even non-Congregationalists would be involved in paying some form of tax to a Denomination outside the scope of Baptist theology. President Jefferson sent out a letter in 1802 responding to the Danbury letter expressing their concerns. The Danbury Baptists were aware that as President Jefferson did not have the authority to arbitrarily change State Law but enlisted his help to the Office of POTUS to encourage various States that had an Established Church to steer away from such a law to concur with Federal Law. This is the time that Jefferson wrote the wall of separation between Church/State letter.

 

President Jefferson was not involved in the committee that drafted the Constitution and neither was he in the position of issuing a Judicial Decision. AND YET Justice Hugo Black in 1947 incorporated the Jefferson letter as an authority to change a 158 years of Constitutional jurisprudence.

 

Below is a long list of quotes that should have borne more weight judicially than the Jefferson opinion that Leftists have warped today to keep Christianity out of America’s public legal and electoral sphere.

 

JRH 3/20/14 (Some these quotes I will endeavor to provide source links not utilized by the web page author)

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Untitled Restore-Christian-America.org on USA as a Christian Nation

 

Justice Thomas McKean 
Served as governor in Delaware and Pennsylvania. During his tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, he offered these words of advice to John Roberts — a man sentenced to death.

 

Respublica vs. John Roberts

“You will probably have but a short time to live. Before you launch into eternity it behooves you most seriously to reflect upon your past conduct; to repent of your evil deeds; to be incessant in prayers to the great and merciful God to forgive your manifold transgressions and sins; to rely upon the merit and passion of a dear Redeemer, and thereby to avoid those regions of sorrow….May you, reflecting upon these things, and pursuing the will of the great Father of light and life, be received into [the] company and society of angels and archangels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and may you be qualified to enter into the joys of Heavens — joys unspeakable and full of glory.”


John Jay, 1777 
The first Chief Justice of the United States

 

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and the interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”


James Wilson, 
a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

 

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine….Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”


Justice Samuel Chase 
Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799

 

“Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”


Justice Joseph Story

 

“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance [approve of], much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating [overcoming] Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations]…”


Justice Joseph Story 
A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States 1840

 

“We are not to attribute this prohibition of the national religious establishment [in the First Amendment] to any indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution)… at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship.

 

… Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate [immoral] are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”


Justice Joseph Story 
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors 1844

 

“Christianity… is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public…”


Justice Joseph Story

 

“There is not a truth to be gathered from history more certain, or more momentous, than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both.

 

“Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.”


Chief Justice John Marshall 
In a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833

 

“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.”


Thomas Cooley 
In his General Principles of Constitutional Law 1890

 

“It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, or that religious worship should never be provided for in cases where a proper recognition of Divine Providence in the working of government might seem to require it, and where it might be done without drawing an invidious distinction between religious beliefs, organizations, or sects. The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and to the same extent as formerly.”


Judge Gallagher 
Baer v. Kolmorgen 
The Supreme Court of New York
1958

 

“Much has been written in recent years…to “a wall of separation between church and State.” …It has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.”


Justice Potter Stewart

[Dissenting Opinion: Engel v. Vitale (1962)]

 

“I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”


Justice William Rehnquist 
Wallace v. Jafree 1985 [Dissenting Opinion]

 

“It is impossible to build sound consitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history… The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years… There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]… The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”


Justice William Rehnquist

[Ibid.]

 

“But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights… The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”


—U.S. Supreme Court, 1811— 
The People v. Ruggles 
Justice James Kent delivered the Court’s opinion:

 

“The defendant was indicted… in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810… wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence of hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: “Jesus Christ is a bastard, and his mother must be a whore”, in contempt of the Christian religion… the defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

 

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor’s case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court… said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.

 

And in the case of Rex vs. Woolston’s, on a like conviction, the Court said… that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government… the authorities show that blasphemy against God and… profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, rather uttered by words or writings… because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.

 

Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interest of civil society…

 

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together.

 

The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only… impious, but… is a gross violation of decency and good order.

 

Nothing could be more injurious to the tender morals of the young, then to declare such profanity lawful…

 

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and descent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile… the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right…

 

We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors [other religions]…

 

[We are] people whose manners are refined and whose morals has been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, by means of the Christian religion. Though the Constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment…

 

This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of Law…

 

To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning…

 

Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land…

 

Nor are we bound by any expression of the Constitution, as some has strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet and the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of this country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of these impostors…

 

The Court is accordingly of the opinion that the judgment… must be affirmed.”


—U. S. Supreme Court, 1892— 
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

 

“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

 

The commission to Christopher Columbus…. “that it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered…”

 

The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584…. and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that they “be not against the true Christian faith…”

 

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606…. commenced the grant in these words: “…in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness…”

 

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony…. in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites; “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith… a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia…”

 

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: “…And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union… there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess…of the said gospel [which] is now practiced amongst us.”

 

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701 it is recited: “…no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of… their religious profession and worship…”

 

Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of Divine in human affairs in these words:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

 

…We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth… because of a general recognition of this truth [that we are a Christian nation], the question has seldom been presented to the courts…

 

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. Those are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.

 

While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law… not Christianity with an established church…. but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

 

And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

 

“The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice… We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”

 

And in the famous Case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, this Court… observed:

 

“It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law…”

 

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ” In the name of God, amen”; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

 

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation…We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.

 

The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.

 

Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.”


—U.S. Supreme Court, 1931— 
U.S. vs. Macintosh

 

“We are a Christian people… and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”


—U. S. Supreme Court, 1952— 
Zorach v. Clauson

[William O. Douglas SCOTUS Opinion]

 

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

 

That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly…

 

Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so help me God” in our courtroom oaths—these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, or public rituals, our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

 

We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being… When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions.

 

For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe…

 

We find no constitutional requirement making it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weighed against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects…

 

We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

_____________________________

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 3

John R. Houk

© March 20, 2014

_____________________________

Untitled Restore-Christian-America.org on USA as a Christian Nation

 

Restore Christian America Homepage

 

Find the Church of the St. Bernard


Two Saint Bernard dogs sit in the snow on the Great St. Bernard Pass after returning from their winter quarters in Martigny, Switzerland, Thursday, June 4, 2009. The dogs will spend the summer on the pass and return to Martigny towards the end of the year. (AP Photo/KEYSTONE/Jean-Christophe Bott)

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2013

 

We all know or should know that the Obama Administration is spying on ALL Americans AND has singled Conservatives via Obama’s reach through the IRS to harass their Free Speech by either disenfranchising their cause organizations or to create crimes that are not there for the Justice Department to intimidate Conservative individuals.

 

I just read a post from Bill Warner of Political Islam in which he accuses the Christian Church in America of becoming weak on moral principles. Warner makes a leap by connecting this moral weakness to the power of the IRS to threaten Churches’ 501c3 status. Most Churches in America connect their 501c3 status to their financial viability to operate. According to rules set up by Congress under the misguided concept of Separation of Church and State the IRS is empowered to crack down on any charity, philanthropic venture, religion – LIKE a Christian Church, nonprofit organization that has the purpose of providing an educational agenda – LIKE a Conservative Tea Party, an educate on Islam organization (e.g. showing how Islam is contradictory to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights) and/or even a Left Wing organization dedicated to correcting racist thought patterns, spreading multiculturalism, upholding Marxist principles that Leftists moronically believe will lead to a better society-culture and so forth whatever you can think of AS LONG AS the 501c3 status has nothing to do with a political agenda affecting Federal, State and Local government. Amazingly Left Wing 501c3 organizations that openly support political candidates seem to get a pass.

 

The thing is – who determines the line between educational and politics that effects the operation of government? Incidentally the operation of government in connection to 501c3 status typically means throwing support behind a political candidate for legislative or executive office on a Federal, State or Local level. That determination is broad and usually more stringent toward Churches during a Dem Party Presidential Administration. Unfortunately it occurs during a GOP Presidential Administration when Leftists complain to their Dem Party Senator or Congressman or they find a Left Wing bureaucrat in the IRS. Again unfortunately there are many Left Wing bureaucrats entrenched at all levels of government that are nearly impossible to fire under Civil Service rules.

 

Frankly these 501c3 political guidelines are a bunch of malarkey because they impose Free Speech restrictions and Religious Freedom restrictions in the name of a principle NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court began adding rule of law to the First Amendment on Church/State Separation in the early 1900s. In 1947 in a SLIM decision of 5-4 Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion that SCOTUS has been following ever since. Black’s Opinion:

 

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. (Bold Emphasis Added)

 

I don’t have a law degree but I know how to read. Jefferson had little to do with writing the Constitution or the Bill of Rights directly. Jefferson’s famous phrasing was in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut that was concerned of that State’s pre-Constitution days of a State Established Church in which the Baptists were excluded but still had to pay taxes to the State Church. Jefferson was merely emphasizing that the First Amendment forbids the Federal government from establishing a State Church which would be tax supported. The Wall of Separation meant that Christian Denominations no longer had to worry about paying taxes to support a State Church because Congress is forbidden to establish a Church Denomination that is tax supported.

 

Read this well written introduction to the actual letter Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church:

 

The Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801, to complain about the infringement of their religious liberty by their state legislature: “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” The Baptists, of course, acknowledged that “the president of the United States is not the national legislator,” but expressed the wish that his views on religious liberty would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world.”

 

In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Connecticut Baptists in their opposition to the state’s established religion, while expressing his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level. Jefferson was not advancing the modern view that religion must be excluded from the public square. After all, he concludes his letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a brief prayer.

 

The now well-known expression lay dormant for nearly a century and a half until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, put forth the novel interpretation that the First Amendment’s establishment clause applied to the states and that any government support or preference for religion amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In support of his argument for a radical separation of religion and politics, he cited Jefferson’s metaphor: “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

 

Jefferson’s actual aim was quite to the contrary. While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty. Jefferson’s letter must also be read in context of his declaration in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: “Almighty God hath created the mind free….” The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all. (Bold Emphasis Added; Heritage Foundation – You can read Jefferson’s actual letter after the introduction)

 

The four Justices that disagreed with the majority opinion penned by Hugo Black were Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, Rutledge and Burton. Everson v Board of Education was about reimbursing parents of Catholic students on the taxpayer dime for transportation to Catholic Schools but not to private schools. For clarity the dissenting Justices agreed with Justice Black’s “…the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State”. The dissenting Justices were upset that the Majority Opinion viewed taxpayer money for transporting students to Catholic Schools was a public service and not a government affirmation of a religious institution. So if the Majority Opinion viewed using tax money as reimbursement was government support of a religious entity and thus overruled Ewing Township transporting Catholic kids just as Public School kids. The Supreme Court ruling would have been 9-0 and Black’s Jefferson quote would still loom at the end of the opinion and the Supreme Court would have still nullified the Original Intent of the wording of the First Amendment in the Establishment Clause which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The words simply forbid Congress to establish a national Church. The following words which “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” would indicate no government meddling in religion but the Religious Freedom to provide a moral influence on government and society at large.

 

Thanks to the 1947 SCOTUS ex nihilo expanded meaning to words in the First Amendment from words outside of the First Amendment, Leftist Secular Humanists have continuously used the Courts to water down Christian Morality in American Society. ONLY Congress could make the Constitutional call SCOTUS 1947 performed. AND Congress would be limited to specifically using the Amendment process to add words such as “a wall of separation between Church and State”. Constitutionally the Supreme Court only can say legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution places legislation – whether it be by the Bill or initiating a Constitutional Amendment – under the purview of Congress.

 

The majority of Christians have failed to stand up and battle Leftists from bleeding Christianity and Biblical Morality out of the United States of America. In this manner Bill Warner is correct. In Christian America Christians attend the Church of the Poodle. American Christians might want to begin looking for the brave and saving Church of the St. Bernard.

 

JRH 6/21/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

The Church of the Poodle

 

By Bill Warner

June 17, 2013

Political Islam

 

It appears that the Obama administration is spying on churches and using the IRS to punish churches about their 501c3 tax exempt status (H/T AtlasShrugs). According to the article, the Obama administration has a program of snooping on the activity in and by churches. The collected church intelligence deals with members who are with Tea Party or who speak publically about guns. (Remember: “cling to their guns and Bibles”.) Some ministers believe that agents may have joined churches to spy.

As bizarre as this may seem, it dovetails with other known Obama administration views. Homeland Security has a profile (yes, all law enforcement uses profiling) of the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Constitution and pro-Bible white Christian as being a potential terrorist.

We do know that the IRS has targeted conservatives, pro-Israel, pro-life, Tea Party and even Billy Graham. When the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association backed the North Carolina ballot initiative about gay marriage, it was notified by the IRS that its tax exempt status was going to be revoked. In the end it was not revoked, but the threat cost money, time and hassle.

All of this has the desired effect of chilling free speech in the churches.

Here is the point: there is no outcry from the churches! This lack of outrage is a measure of the health of Christianity in America-so weak that it cannot even protest the abuse. But, we already knew how morally weak the church is in its response to rape, theft, enslavement and murder of Christians throughout the Islamic world. Christians are the most persecuted demographic group in the world. Over 100,000 thousand Christians died last year, and the response of the churches is to smile and hold a dialog with Muslims who are brothers with the jihadist persecutors. Dhimmi ministers speak of loving their Muslim neighbors, but show no concern for dead Christians. The day of a minister having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other is over. The new gospel is: What, me worry?

Why does the moral and spiritual decay of the church matter to a counter-jihadist? This is a civilizational war and our spiritual flank is unprotected. Instead of the church being a guard dog, it is a poodle. Ministers cannot even protect their own flocks, much less the nation. Back in the past the church was the foundation of the nation and a guardian of our society. But now the church won’t even bark at an enemy-foreign or domestic. All the church wants is a scratch behind the ears by the intruder. (In fairness, only 95% of the churches are being condemned here.) To be complete, the synagogues are a swamp of ignorance and cowardliness, as well.

So, to the counter-jihadist the church is at best a dead weight of massive ignorance and is frequently found in bridge-building dialogues with the enemy-Islam.

_____________________

Find the Church of the St. Bernard

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2013

____________________

The Church of the Poodle

 

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-church-of-the-poodle/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

© 2007-2013 Political Islam
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

Criticizing the Current Interpretation of Disestablishment Clause


Fisher Ames Framer 1st Amendment

Fisher Ames

 

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2012

 

On my AC2C blog I posted this title: “Keep Govt. OUT of Church – NOT Church out Govt.” The main focus of the post was a Youtube video of excerpts of President Ronald Reagan speeches with a definite portrayal of Christianity on the U.S. government.

 

I wrote this as a little introduction to the Ronald Reagan excerpts:

 

The disestablishment clause of the First Amendment is a one-way action as far as Separation of Church and State is concerned. That one-way is that government must be separate and out of the religion business AND NOT that the Church be separate from the government.

 

Here are the limited comments on my AC2C blog pertaining to my introduction to the Reagan video:

 

Comment by CJ on Wednesday:

 

If they want to keep their tax exemptions they can’t preach it at the pulpit.  So, what? … they [can] go out in the political world. the church can interfere, influence government but government can’t interfere with the church…???????

 

I do believe the Founders wanted “religion” out of politics and politics out of ‘religion”.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree John.

 

Comment by John on Wednesday

 

I respectfully disagree CJ. The Church in various denominations can and should be an influence on government and the government should never interfere with the Church in its various denominations. Both sides of that coin can work and did in America until the 1960s.

 

Comment by CJ on Monday

 

[N]ot sure about this….can’t have it both ways…if you want government out of the church then let the church stay out of the government….

 

Now just for clarity’s sake I am not criticizing CJ. We are friends on AC2C. Indeed, at AC2C CJ is a big fish and I am just a little mackerel. I am thrilled when CJ reads my posts and comments on them. We are both Conservatives. You should also know Conservatives do not agree on all issues. On the Church/State issue I am all about the government needs to mind its business relating to the Church and the Church needs to be a moral foundation for the rule of law in America and thus the U.S. government.

 

As the moral foundation, I am not advocating that Christianity itself be the law of the land. I am advocating that Christian morality and principles be the measuring stick for the rule of law in Congress enacting laws and the Executive Branch enforcing those laws or appending rules in conjunction to Congressional enacted laws to define enforcement. Neither the President nor the Judiciary Branch should enact laws according to the U.S. Constitution that are outside the scope of duly enacted Constitutional Congressional laws. The Executive enforces or manages the rule of law and the Judicial Branch merely interprets the enacted law or the enforcement of an enacted law according to the U.S. Constitution and the duly State ratified Amendments.

 

As far as the Church, the State and the Constitution are related I like this statement on a Jeremiah Project article:

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

For me the First Amendment in its Original Intent means that which I placed in bold print above: “it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

 

This is what I meant by Church and State separation is a one-way street. This is why I disagree with CJ. In CJ’s reasoning there is no two-ways about it; i.e. if government cannot be involved Church then Church cannot be involved in government. There is one I can agree with CJ’s reasoning. That agreement is the Church cannot be a Branch of the government say like Islam is a part of the Iranian government making Iran a theocracy. In this line of thinking CJ is absolutely correct in keeping religion/Church separate from government.

 

The USA is a democratically representative Republic by the people and for the people. There is nothing theocratic about America. In promoting Christian principles in government Americans are doing that which keeps America great. The more God that is prohibited in American government the less America is great. So on government property whether it is Federal, State or local government the emblems of America’s heritage should remain to remind the government what the basis for the rule of law comes from. Part of that heritage is also Judeo-Greco-Roman influence. There is no shame for a secular government to emblemize reminders of our heritage following the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman line.

 

This is the one-way street: no government meddling in religion; however religious influence on government is needful for good government for the people and by the people.

 

The thing is most Democrats disagree with the one-way street paradigm I briefly stated because of the Living Constitution doctrine has allowed Left oriented activist Judges to begin slowly aligning the nation away from the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers to utilize Christian morality and love to be the foundation of the rule of law.

 

Here are some remarks that disfavor the Living Constitution doctrine from deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

 

At least three serious difficulties flaw the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution. First, it misconceives the nature of the Constitution, which was designed to enable the popularly elected branches of government, not the judicial branch, to keep the country abreast of the times. Second, the brief writer’s version ignores the Supreme Court’s disastrous experiences when in the past it embraced contemporary, fashionable notions of what a living Constitution should contain. Third, however socially desirable the goals sought to be advanced by the brief writer’s version, advancing them through a freewheeling, nonelected judiciary is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

The brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, in the last analysis, is a formula for an end run around popular government. To the extent that it makes possible an individual’s persuading one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution, the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society. (The Notion of a Living Constitution; by William H. Renquist – Read Entire PDF Document)

 

Here are some thoughts from Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

 

In a 35-minute speech Monday [2005], Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. …

 

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

 

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

 

 

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

 

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,” said Scalia … (Scalia Slams ‘Living Constitution’ Theory; by AP on Fox News; 3/14/05 – Read Entirety)

 

Here is excerpted definition of Original Intent from The Free Dictionary:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

… Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

 

… They argue that the interpretation of most written documents, legal or otherwise, involves a form of “communication” in which “the writer seeks to communicate with the reader”, Constitutional interpretation is no different, originalists say, because it involves the attempt of judges, as readers, to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision as conveyed by the Framers and ratifiers who authored it. Originalists believe that judges who fail to employ this method of interpretation transform courts into naked power organs.

 

Originalists contend that judges who deviate from the original understanding of a constitutional provision are forced to replace that understanding with their own subjective sympathies, social preferences, and notions of reasonableness. When judges substitute their own value choices for those actually written in the Constitution, federal courts become super-legislatures that make decisions based on the personal will of judges and not the law of the land (Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 [1952]).

 

Originalists assert that judges who legislate from the bench violate the separation of powers by making law rather than interpreting and applying it. These judges also violate the principles of federalism, the second essential feature of U.S. constitutional democracy identified by originalists. Under these principles, courts must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereignties of state and federal governments, not allowing the smaller state governments to be wholly consumed by the ubiquitous federal government. Originalists contend that this balance impermissibly tips in favor of the federal government when federal courts invent new constitutional rights that state governments are then required to enforce.

 

 

Respect for principles of federalism, then, is intimately connected with the third essential feature of U.S. Constitutional democracy identified by originalists, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain freedoms from the popular will no matter how democratically the majority attempts to trample them. In all other areas, originalists assert, state and federal majorities are entitled to rule for no better reason than that they are majorities. Originalists explain that majority tyranny occurs if legislation invades areas properly left to individual freedom, and minority tyranny occurs if the majority is prevented from ruling where its power is legitimate.

 

Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

 

… (Read Entire Definition)

 

That is stage I have attempted to refute on the so-called Separation of Church and State theory the courts have maintained since the mid-20th century to stop America’s Christian Heritage on or in anything that is supported by any kind of taxpayer money.

 

In 1947 a five to four decision in the Supreme Court ex nihilo added Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church assuring them that the Federal Government would not establish a National Church thus that Church would not have worry about its parishioners paying taxes to a State Church as the British citizens had to do to support the Church of England (Anglican Church – Episcopalian in USA). In that letter Thomas Jefferson promised a “Wall of Separation” between the Church and the State.  Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the five Justices that egregiously added to the Constitution via a misinterpretation of Jefferson’s intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. (Dissenting Opinions of Everson v. Board of Education: Jackson and Rutledge)

 

Here is a great rendition of Original Intent pertaining to the First Amendment and the Disestablishment Clause.

 

JRH 6/16/12 (Thanks to CJ for inspiring me to ponder)

Please Support NCCR