|
One Nation Under _____ what ?
According to the latest news
One person brought change to a nation.
Tyranny of the Minority of, one !
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 people. Can I get a bill to be passed to remove all the selfish mean people from America.
CRN © 2001 The Issue around the removal of the statement, "under God" from the Pledge of Alligence.
©
1996
CRN CrossRoads Network
Misinterpretation of the
Idea of Seperation of Church and State....
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
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
==============
First let's look at America In the light of the 30
Years War.....1618-1648
---------------
Brief History.
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. Christians not welcome to
any of
the State Established Religions in Europe flee to USA.
1648-1710 Later settlement Theme. Christians not welcome
in the
State Run State Mandated Post 30 Year War Europe are
forced to leave homes businessess,
1720-1760 American Great Awakening revival, Wesley,
Whitfield, Jonathin Edwards and thousands of churches in
America have religious revival. Church attendance rises
from 22% to almost 74%.
American Revolution 1775-
Declaration, first 2 paragraphs defines Rights of Man
Created and Granted by God, (note)dont call on any
specific religion....
second declaration calls for a form of government
"to protect those rights, defined in the Declaration
of Independance."
(Notice,,,,,, in writing they directly addressed they
they
did not want a Congress that establishes Religions. They
were
reacting to the 30 Years War where Britan, France,
Sweeden,
Germany, Switzerland, formed one official State Run
Established Religion. ) That is why the writers
------------
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
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).
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.
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.
Neither document 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.
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".
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.
===========================
Declariation of
Independance & Constitution
Why don't we read it for ourselves,,,
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
===========================
THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES
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.
Compiled by Mike McKerracher in answer to over 300 email responses to
Article about the Supreme Court Decision to stop the stateing
of "under God" from the Pledge of Aligenience..
|
Main Menu
|
10
|
