|
One Nation Under ? ? ? ? what ?
Scroll down for on this page below is: 1. A look at the wording of "the actual Constitution". Hey, let's read it for ourselves !
2. The 30 Years War and it's Effects on the Philosophy of the Early Settlers.
3. The history around the writers, and atmosphere it was written in.
4. List of quotes from the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution.
5. Comments about the Constitution made by the writers and other early Americans.
6. The Early view of "Strict Construing of the Constitution in light of the Intents in the Declariation of Independance".
7. Current Revisionist Interpretations, and list of Issues and misapplications of the Constitution from the falsified
concepts of
the "Seperation of Church from State". Once you read the paragraph they are mistranslating you will be amazed.
= =
According to Madison, "it was the writers of the constitutions intent that neither documents (Declariation & Constitution) were to be interpreted without the (strong influance) of the other document". See below. Let's look first at the strong wording in the Declairation of Independance, how that by Our Creator we are Endowed with Unalienable Rights
- - This article comes from a person, who, while in Britan was taken to court for holding bible studies in his home. Who was told, your "Not a part of the State Established Churches in Scotland". "We have no obligation to recognize or condone your religous activities". Later, when I was holding a conference in Kaiserslautern Germany I returned to find a court trial had been held in my absence. I was found guilty of holding bible studies in my living room. And, I was fined over 870 pounds sterling.
- - We received 5 letters from the local churches to leave their town. The only market in town refused to sell us food. While handing out gospel tracts on the only main street people shouted at us from their cars, "go home Mr. McKerracher we don't want you here". I would shout back, "as soon as your out here doing God's Work of Sharing the Great Gospel of Christ and leading souls to salvation, then I will leave."
Till then, my call stays strong that I go to the highways and byways and preach the Good News.
Later when helping to start a christian radio station, the Queen who owns the airways had a gunboat go and sink our radio ship even though it was 3 miles of shore.
I was Courtmartialed for preaching. Click to read. We started out by holding a prayer meeting under a tree at Fort Sam Huston in Texas. After a 5 Cournal Jury found us guilty, I preached a sermon in the court as a final plea, and we were aquitted. (Quotes from Founding Fathers of America below).
|
 It is still in the news, and still somewhat possible that, one person from San Francisco may bring major change
to an entire nation. At the same time his wife and
daughter go to an "Evangelical", Calvery Church and the daughter
goes to the Christian School. The daughter said, "she loves to lead
the class in the Pledge of Alligence".
It is obvious that the
estranged father is bitter and wanting to get back at his wife
through their daughter.
Remember Madeline Murrey Ohara, 1 person,
got prayer taken out of the schools. When sick and dying, she was
hidden, moved while in pain from place to place, with people chasing
her to get hold of her money. Many still checking cannot find out
what her death was like. You would think such a bold athiest would
want the world and cameras to record her defiant death. But like all
athiests, their behavior at death undoes their entire life of hatred
toward God.
If this passes it will break one of the
Constitutions Major Aims. To protect the majority from the "Tyranny
of the Minority". and in this case the tyranny of One
person.
|
Rather than
listening to what someone says someone said about the 1st Amendment
itself. Let's read the actual 1st Amendment for ourselves. Here it
is:
Amendment
I
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 to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
Note: all the above, on the list. Free Religions,
Free Speech, Free Press, Free People Assembling, are empowered to
petition the Government for redress, of grievances. They get to
complain to and fix the Government, not the other way around.
* Many quotes at the bottom from the writers of the
Constitution below.
|
|
Early Americans came
during the
30 Years
War.....1618-1648
---- 1620-1650
Early Settlement Period Note; Mayflower arrived in 1620. The
Pilgrims unwilling to take sides during the 30 Years War and many
other small religous groups fled to America until the end of the war
in 1648.
---- After 1648 following the
"Treaty of West Valia" the groups coming over were referred to
as The Latter Settlement groups. Most risking the trip were
groups backed by Investment Firms, like the Massachutes Bay Company.
The Hudson Bay Company. This lasted until around 1698. Many of these
were the "landed gentry" who were being muscled out for being on the
wrong side during the 30 Year Religous Wars.
---- Note: After the 30 Years Religous War is
Finished, the 7 Major European Countries, had Government Established Churches. They were government Established, Run, Prohibited, and limited in their exercize of religious activities.
The state religions were and still are run by that countries governmnent.
From 1618 till 1648 any religions not sideing with the winners of each country were made unwelcome in many ways.
Kappel War.....
Switzerland now Calvinism...
Sweden/Poland War.....
Now Lutheran...
Smalderic War.....Turkey Catholic...
till Islam retakes area
Huguenot War.....
France becomes Catholic...
Ireland War.....
English Angelican defeat Catholic...
Scotland War.....
Presbyterians...
England.....
Chromwell Protestants win in 1642.....
German War.....
Lutherans over Catholic...
---- Following the 30-Years War, the following abuses of European Governments against religion from
1650 to 1730 influenced our forfathers in 1776 to be against Government having powers to "Establish State
Churches", or the right to "Dissolve any Churches".
This was so
important that they made sure that Government would be under the
checks and balances of the; empowered churches, empowered rights of
Free Speech, empowered Free Press, and the empowered rights of "the
people" for "Free Assembly". And finally their empowerment to
redress Government with Greviances.... By the way, I have alot of
Greviances Right Now. Early America Brief History
Timeline
1618-1648 30 Years
War, 7 Nations fighting over which National Religion they would
adapt to then have Congress Establishing & Manageing its State
Religion.
1620-Christian Pilgrims, Passifists land in America
avoiding 30 yr.war.
1622-48 Early settlement Theme. A small congregation of Puritists in Scrooby England flee on the Mayflower for their anit war stand. Christians unwilling to take sides in their polarizing
country are pushed out.
Roger Williams in 1628 is banished and his congregation for criticizing governments abuse of power against churches.
1630-1648 a pattern develops where the warring religions team up to get rid of the dissenters. They
force the small groups of Puritans, Pilgrims, AnaBaptists, Quakers, and Hugonauts to flee to USA.
1648-1710 Later settlement Theme. Unwelcome christian denominations flee to America but now are strongly linked to Corporate Backers. Capetown 1652. Nantucket 1658. Massachutes Bay Company, Hudson Bay Company, the Puritan Lutherin Dutch in Michigan-Charlston 1672.
Many Gentry, (land wealth based upper middle class) who took the wrong side. When the winning religion now official National Government Established. Lost their wealth. To save any thing they joined the fleeing religous groups. They added many skills not afforded the lower classes.
From 1690 to 1720 religous ferver waned in AmericaBut newer groups formed, Quakers, Shakers, early Baptists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Methodists, and later the Old Light Presbyterians and Catholics called Pietists, or the Quietists.
Common characteristics of these emerging denominations were. Most were pacifists, anti war, all were anti State Established Churches. All, linked Human Rights with Religous Freedoms. This strong sentiment would forge the conscience of their children who would lead in the American Revolution.
1720-1760 American Great Awakening was an international revival happening in Britan, America, France, Holland and Switzerland. Speakers like, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathin Edwards, Tennant, Dutch Reformed Pastor Frelinghuysen would impact thousands of churches in America have religious revival. Church attendance rises from 22% to almost 74%.
These Speakers, were even better writers many terms, and phrases can be seen in the wording of the Declariation and Constitution.
1774-1777 Writers in the American Revolution focused on two things. In the 1775-Declaration, first 2 paragraphs define the:
1. Rights of
Man, Created and Granted by God, (note) they dont refer to any specific religion....
2. Second, the declaration calls for a form
of government "to protect those rights, that are defined in the
Declaration of Independance." (Notice,,,,,, in writing they
directly addressed that they did not want a Congress that
establishes Religions.
They were reacting to the increasing abuses of Governments to their Official State Established religions over the last 127 years when the 30 Years war ended in 1648 end to the 30 Years War.
|
Amendment I
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 to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
For the following to make sense,
First read the Early Settement Timeline on the right.
Note:
There must be a total ignorance of American History to be able to twist
the meaning and intent of the 1st Amendment. They so twist the meaning that
what they say means exactly the opposit of what the 1st Amendments says.
They say, "That there should be a complete separation of Church and State, and that the government, not the church has the rights to Prohibit Church Activities around the state. That the state can prohibit, interfere, and abridge the free exercize of the church" They interpet it as a Complete Seperation of the state from the church.
Re-read the 1st Amendment. Notice, it empowers, the church, the people with free speech, freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly and that the people of the United States also have the ability to redress government with their grievances.
The 1st Amendment actually lists limits on the State, not on the church, so it
the state will not interfere with the church, with free speech, free press, freedom to assemble, freedom to redress government.
This won't make sense without a knowledge of the history around the men who wrote the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution.
Please read on the right, the effects of the 30 Years "Religous" War in Europe and how the powers of governments to establish religions, and prohibit different attempts to exercize their freedoms, ruined human rights freedoms in Europe.
This so affected the Founding Fathers of the United States. They used the very wording that Europe's Governments used to control, contain and diminish the "Rights of Man", "Under God".
The writers made it clear and preeminent that for any other rights to be able to operate in a "Democracy" the state must have the following limits:
1. The State has no right to Establish religion. "No More Government Established Churches". Like the Countries in Europe had after 30 Years War.
2. The State has no right to prohibit, interfere or abridge, the free
exercize thereof. (The free exercize of religions).
3. The State has no rights to prohibit, interfere
or abridge, Free Speech,
4. The State has no right to prohibit,
interfere or abridge, the Freedom of the Press
5. And the State has no rights to
prohibit, interfere with, Free Assembly.
6. Yet, all the above have the right to Petition Government for Redress of their Grievances
 The Federal government was
to protect the democratic majority from both the Tyranny of the majority
and from the tyranny of the minority. The founding Fathers would be
suprised if they found out that one irate father, and athiest, was able to
get the "under God" statement removed from the pledge alligence.
I
personally don't like mean unkind people. Can I get a bill to be passed to
remove all the selfish mean and unkind people from America.
CRN
© 2001 The Issue around the removal of the statement, "under
God" from the Pledge of Alligence. ....
How did the following quote
become the current term we use now
"separation of church and
state".
Simply, the new country didn't want to have Nationally Run and
Established Churches like that which had just happened in the 7 countries
of Europe, a result of the 30 years war. ==========
Amendment I
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 to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
As the concept is commonly
understood today, the government has never passed a law implementing the
"separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply
states:
------------
"Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
------------
Over the years,
however, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have reinterpreted
this amendment in many ways. This reinterpretation of the Constitution has
in effect become the "law" supposedly dictating the "separation of church
and state." Which is never mentioned in the origional
documents.
Let's look first at a very brief history of the
Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation, and then we'll
discuss what the phrase "separation of church and state" means as it is
applied in American public policy.
One of the Supreme Court's most
blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their
reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior
to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the
federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law. . ."
As one of many efforts to limit
the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over
religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to
this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth
century.
But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme
Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned
that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the
Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of
the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth
Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier
Courts.
Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record
and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent.
Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would
soon follow.
In the context of religion, the Court's first and most
abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v.
Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the
First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State
courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original
intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of
Rights to the States. They did not stop there.
The next landmark
ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the
Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to
the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the
Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete.
From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious
issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First
Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State)
have become the "law" of "separation of church and state."
That was
a very brief description of how the federal courts have taken authority
over religious issues, reinterpreting the First Amendment and applying it
to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of this was done in
clear violation of the actual wording of the Constitution, as well as the
intentions of its framers. The modern concept of "separation of church and
state" can not be justified using the historical record.
We are forced,
however, to work with the existing court doctrines. Therefore, what does
the phrase mean today as it is applied in American public policy? The
First Amendment, which prohibited any "law respecting the establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has evolved into
something entirely new. During the last generation, the courts, at all
levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from
religion, instead of the freedom of religion.
"Separation of
church and state," as applied to education, means that a prayer at a
graduation ceremony is unconstitutional. It also means that students may
not pause for a moment of silence at the beginning of their school day. It
means that a nativity scene may not be displayed on public property unless
there are other displays (e.g. Santa Clause or Christmas trees) that
secularize the presentation.
Today's conception of "separation of
church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from
public property, and religious symbols from city seals. It has been used
to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are
carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The
concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized
license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of
the concept, or "law" of "separation of church and state."
One
should understand that "separation of church and state" is not actually a
law. It is a doctrine, or a legal concept, that has been implemented by
the various courts primarily over the last fifty years. If this concept,
as originally understood, would have been applied with consistency over
the years, America would certainly be a different country right now.
Religious expression would flourish, and the courts would not be
micromanaging the religious life of the American people.
The
doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being
used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical
perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The
government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and
religious expression were to be encouraged.
This is why, for
example, the first Congress asked President George Washington to issue a
Thanksgiving Proclamation upon completion of the Bill of Rights. Today,
that practice would be viewed as unconstitutional. It would violate the
"separation of church and state."
Read the Federalists Papers. This is Jeffersons answer to the
misinterpretation of the misconstruing of the Seperation of Church and
State not mentioned in the
Constitution.
===================
Jeffersons Letter Great Answer to Danbury
Concil
On January 1, 1802, in
response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas
Jefferson wrote:
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of
esteem and approbation which are so good 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 the government reach
actions only, and 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 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural
right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind
prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator
of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my
high respect and esteem.
Thomas
Jefferson
==================
Great List of
Quotes
Separation of Church and
State: Has it gone too far?
Concerning separation of
church and state, here are the decisions of the modern United States
Supreme Court:
* The First Amendment has erected a wall between
church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could
not approve the slightest breach.1 Everson v. Board of Education,
1947
* It is unconstitutional to offer verbal prayers in a school,
regardless of denominational neutrality and voluntary participation. Engel
v. Vitale, 1962;2 Abington v. Schempp, 1963;3 Commissioner of Education v.
School Committee of Leyden, 1971.4
* It is unconstitutional for a
student to pray aloud over his lunch. Reed v. van Hoven.5
*
Students have guaranteed freedom of speech and press, except when it
becomes religious, at which point it becomes unconstitutional. Stein v.
Oshinsky, 1965;6 Collins v. Chandler Unified School District,
1981.7
* It is unconstitutional for a voluntary gathering of
students before school to hear the prayers of Congressional Chaplains read
from the Congressional Record by a student volunteer, even though the
prayers are printed in a public manuscript published by the U.S.
government. State Board v. Board of Education of Netcong, 1970.8
*
It is unconstitutional for the walls of a classroom to have the Ten
Commandments on them, because it may lead the students to read them,
meditate on them, respect them, or obey them. Stone v. Gramm; 1980;9 Ring
v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980;10 Lanner v. Wimmer,
1981.11
These are only a few of the instances in which the modern
Court has forcibly separated church and state. Almost all instances occur
in the realm of public education. According to a poll published in Time
magazine (Dec. 9, 1991, pg. 64) most of these separations are largely
contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the American
people.
These rulings occur predominantly in respect to education
because education is the key to the morals, virtues and dignity of the
society in which we will live in the future. Some of the results of these
decisions by the Court are as follows:
"Recently public schools
were barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown, because
the film depicted the erection of a cross at the settlement [despite the
truth that] according to historical facts, a cross was erected at the
Jamestown settlement."12
"In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year-old James
Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time ...
the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was
told doing so was against the law."13
The Courts started this
decidedly un-American and subversive behavior with the Everson decision in
1947. The actions that the Court took at that time began to reverse the
long standing opinions of the Court for the 150 years preceding 1947, and
these recent decisions were without legal precedent, a definite taboo in
the legal profession at that time.
"Why did the Court not include a
precedent? The answer is simple: there were no previous cases to support
its decision in this case! The Court had refused to acknowledge the
existence of opinions by the Founders, Congress, previous Courts, and
others, because those opinions conflicted with the position the Court now
assumed. This ruling was simply a declaration of the Court's new policy,
revealing the way it would now interpret the First Amendment.
"The
Court employed an effective strategy to help create acceptance of the new
policy: the appearance of its widespread public support ... Without legal
precedents to aid them, the Court relied on purveying an image of
universal acceptance and support of its new policy. This was a patient
misrepresentation ... The Court had employed an effective marketing
strategy, but not an honest one!
"The question remains: how could
such an absurd decision occur...? The answer is obvious: these Justices
were political judges, not constitutional judges. As Edwin S. Corwin
pointed out in The Constitution of the United States of America [Eidsmoe,
p.396], this Court, which during its tenure was able to completely remove
God from education by a series of completely unprecedented decisions, did
not have a single judge with any prior judicial experience! Despite the
oath the Justices took upon entering office, the Court did not intend to
follow the original intent and uphold the Constitution. It intended to
make the nation's policies reflect its own personal philosophical
views."14
Beginning of Misunderstanding, for the Wall of
Separation
The terminology that the Court used, that of a
"wall of separation" between church and state was not even taken from what
the Founding Fathers believed, but rather, was taken from an obscure
speech given by Thomas Jefferson and was then twisted out of
context.
Jefferson gave a speech to a Baptist association during
his Presidency. Because he wanted to establish common ground with them in
his speech, he borrowed a phrase from one of their theologians to use in
his speech. The context in which he used the phrase: "wall of separation"
was to reassure them that the national government would not establish a
national government supported church (denomination) to be superior to all
other denominations. The "wall of separation" phrase was meant as an
allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from
interfering(see Barton, pp. 41-42 and Eidsmoe, p.
243).
Opinions of the Founding Fathers, later leaders,
statesmen and Presidents
Concerning the separation of
church and state, here are the opinions of the Founding Fathers, of their
contemporary statesmen, of later leaders, statesmen and Presidents, of
later Congresses, and later Supreme Courts (before the current Supreme
Court):
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future
of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all
of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James
Madison.15
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals:
therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties
of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris.16
"Neither the wisest
constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of
a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel
Adams.17
"Republican government loses half its value where the
moral and social duties are ... negligently practiced. To exterminate our
popular vices is work of far more importance to the character and
happiness of our citizens than any other improvements in our system of
education." Noah Webster.18
"... True religion affords to
government its surest support." George Washington.19
"We have no
government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for
a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of
any other." John Adams.20
"... The cultivation of the religious
sentiment represses licentiousness ... inspires respect for law and order,
and gives strength to the whole social fabric." Daniel
Webster.21
"... The happiness of a people and the good order and
preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion,
and morality...." United States Supreme Court, 1892.22
"...
Offenses against religion and morality ... strike at the root of moral
obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties ... this [First
Amendment] declaration ... never meant to withdraw religion ... and with
it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all
consideration and notice of the law ..." Supreme Court, 1811.23
"It
yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free
government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and the
support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state
in any assignable shape." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.24
"It
is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
George Washington.25
"The foundations of our society and our
government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be
difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be
practically universal in our country." President Calvin
Coolidge.26
"Moral habits ... cannot safely be trusted on any other
foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is
not supported by moral habits ... Whatever makes men good Christians,
makes them good citizens." Daniel Webster.27
"The purest principles
of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for
them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -
the Bible. United States Supreme Court, 1844.28
"... What
constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There
certainly is none other. Say that it cannot be appealed to, and ... what
would be good morals The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an
instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky
night of ... immorality." Supreme Court of South Carolina,
1846.29
"... For whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends
manifestly to the dissolution of civil government ... because it tends to
corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order." Supreme
Court of New York, 1811.30
"... Religion ... must be considered as
the foundation on which the whole structure rests ... In this age there
can be no substitute for Christianity ... the great conservative element
on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions."
Senate Judiciary Committee, 1853.31
"It is impossible to enslave
mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles off the Bible
are the groundwork of human freedom." Horace Greely.32
"... But for
[the Bible] we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable
for man's welfare ... are to be found portrayed in it." Abraham
Lincoln.33
Here is one final quote from one of our modern, most
well respected Presidents:
"The basis of our Bill of Rights comes
from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St.
Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have
a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a ...
government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!"
President Harry S Truman.34
Don't be misled. Look at American
history for yourself, instead of just taking someone else's word for it.
The people teaching you this stuff don't want you to go to the sources of
American history, the original documents, they only want you too read what
has been said about it recently. So be radical, read the Constitution for
yourself, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the
Northwest Ordinance, and all of the other documents important in American
history. When we quit reading these things for ourselves, we become no
better than cows to be herded around, led by the nose, and then
indiscriminately slaughtered.
A look at the Declariation of Independance &
Constitution side by side.
I have an
idea, Why don't we read and compare the two documents side by side for
ourselves !
= Three = Things to consider as we compare the two documents
below keep in mind the writers of the Constitution Declaired
that:
= 1 = Neither documents were to be interpreted without the
"strong influance" of the other documnet. Declariation's Emphasis the
"rights of man," and, We, the people". Note Human Rights are Defined as
Endowments by their Creator, Entitlements are created by "their Creator".
Equality, life, liberty, persuit of happiness.
|
= 2 = Remember, the
Declariation then calls for a need for governments, but includes
clause to disband any unfair government that is destructive of
"these Rights of the People". Declariation of Independance
( below
)
===========================
= = 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
========
|
|
= 3 = The Constitution is the
form of governing the Declariation calls for. But, the interpreters
are to look to the Declariations deffinition of the "Kind of Human
Rights," the "Type of individual freedoms", as (Those beyond man and
government which are granted by our Creator.) This moves the Moral
Imperative, Human Value, and contexts of Right or Wrong to be
designated as from a higher court beyond land, people, governments.
The imperative of eternal rights, and absolute truths, The Creator
of Nature and Laws holds our certain Rights as inalienable.........
No matter what age or country we the people are in. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA
( below
)
===========================
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.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the
Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at
the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as
extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will
best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by
the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses
concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the
Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles,
when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid
to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution,
namely:
Amendment
I
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.
Amendment II
A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
|
1 Everson
v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 18 (1947).
2 Engel v. Vitale; 370 U.S.
421 (1962).
3. Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
4
Massachusetts Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden; 267
N.E. 2d 226, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849 (1971).
5 Reed v. van Hoven,
237 F. Supp. 48 (1965).
6 Stein v. Oshinsky; 348 F. 2d 299, cert.
denied, 382 U.S. 957 (1965).
7 Collins v. Chandler Unified School
District; 644 F. 2d 759, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863 (1981).
8 State
Board of Education v. Board of Netcong; 270 A. 2d 412, 57 N.J. 172, 108
N.J. Super 564, 262 A. 2d 21 (1970).
9 Stone v. Graham; 449 U.S. 39
(1980).
10 Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District; 483 F. Supp. 272
(1980).
11 Lanner v. Wimmer; 622 F. 2d 1349 (1981).
12 John Eidsmoe,
Christianity and the Constitution (Baker Book House, Michigan, 1987)
p.406.
13 IFA Newsletter, February 1989, "Fifth Grader Sues for Right
to Read Bible."
14 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder
Press, Aledo, Texas, 1989) pp.147,148.
15. Russ Walton, Biblical
Principles of Importance to Godly Christians (Plymouth Rock Foundation,
NH,1984) p.361
16. Eidsmoe, p.188.
17. Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our
Founding Fathers (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., Brentwood TN.,
1987) p.196.
18 Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English
Language, 1828 (FACE, San Francisco, CA. 1967) p.10.
19 Eidsmoe,
p.124.
20 LaHaye, p.194, 196; Eidsmoe. pp. 272-273. Quoted from The
Works of John Adams.
21 Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (The
Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, Philadelphia, 1986) p.21.
22 Church of the
Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 143 U.S. 469 (1892).
23 People v. Ruggles; 8
Johns 546 (1811).
24 Verna M. Hall and Rosalie J. Slater, The Bible and
the Constitution of the United States of America (Foundation for American
Christian Education, San Francisco, 1983) p.38.
25 Dr. Sterling Lacy,
Valley of Decision (Dayspring Productions, Texarkana, TX) p.3
26 Steve
C. Dawson, God's Providence in America's History (Steve C. Dawson, Rancho
Cordova, CA) p.12:3.
27 Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the
Constitution of the United States of America (FACE) p.247.
28 Vidal v.
Girard's Executors; 43 U.S. 153 (1844).
29 City of Charleston v. S.A.
Benjamin; 2 Strob. 520 (1846).
30 People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 546
(1811).
31 B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil
Institutions of the United States (George W. Childs, Philadelphia, 1864)
p.318-329.
32 Lacy, p.8.
33 Clarence E. MacCartney, Lincoln and the
Bible (Abington-Cokesbury Press, New York, 1949) p.35.
34 Dawson,
p.13-1.
|
CRN
Main
Menu
|