Possible sighting. Take immediate action.
Posted on 07/21/2004 4:32:35 AM PDT by Navydog
The following statements are from “America’s Godly Heritage”, a video from Wall Builders. I wish to give credit to them for this wonderful video for anyone wanting to know the truth about America’s history and “Separation of Church and State”.
“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principals of Christianity will change the face of the world.”
Benjamin Franklin
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionist, but by Christians. Not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Patrick Henry
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this… It connected in one indissolvable bond the principals of civil government with the principals of Christianity.”
John Quincy Adams
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”
John Jay (First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vein would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who would labor to subvert these great pillars.”
George Washington (Farewell Address)
The University of Houston did a 10-year study on to see where the founding fathers got their ideas for the constitution. They collected over 15,000 writings of the founding fathers, and then narrowed them down to 3,154 that they felt had the most impact on the writing of the constitution. The 3 men they quoted most often were:
1. Blackstone 2. Montesquieu 3. John Locke
But, more than they quoted these 3 men, 94% of the quotes of the founding fathers came directly out of the Bible.
The idea for the 3 branches of government came from:
Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. The separation of powers came from:
Jeremiah 17
1 The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars;
2 Whilst their children remember their altars and their groves by the green trees upon the high hills.
3 O my mountain in the field, I will give thy substance and all thy treasures to the spoil, and thy high places for sin, throughout all thy borders.
4 And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.
One of the first cases that came before the Supreme Court in which religious principals were invoked:
1796 – Runkel vs. Winemiller
The Supreme Court stated:
“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and the sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing.”
In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury Connecticut had heard a rumor that the Congregationalist Denomination was about to become the established religion of the United States. Being concerned, as they should be, they wrote a letter to then President Thomas Jefferson on October 7th 1801.
On January 1st, 1802 Jefferson replied in a letter, which contained the following statement:
“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”.
This letter is where the misrepresented idea of separation of church came from.
1811 – People vs. Ruggles
The Supreme Court Stated:
“Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends to manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.”
In this particular case, the person responsible for the suit in a written statement had committed blasphemy against Jesus Christ. In the eyes of the Court, they interpreted the blasphemy as an attack on the United States and thus rewarded the person a $500.00 fine plus 3 months in prison.
1844 – Vidal vs. Girard
In this case, a school in Philadelphia wanted to try and teach morality without religious principals.
The Supreme Court Stated:
“Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principals of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”
In 1853 a group filed a suit that actually wanted “Separation of Church and State”. The Case never made it to the Supreme Court.
On March 27, 1854 The House Judiciary Committee Stated:
“Had the people during the revolution had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, the revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.”
The Committee Continued…
“At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was the Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect.”
Also, it stated…
“In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
Furthermore…
“The great vital and conservative element of our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 1878 – Reynolds vs. United States
In this case the Supreme Court used Thomas Jefferson’s letter in its entirety. The letter was actually used to ensure Christian principals were kept in government.
1892 – Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States
The Supreme Court stated:
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible for it to be otherwise; in this sense and to the extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
The court went on to quote 87 historical precedents to support its findings and stated that there were more, but 87 should be sufficient.
1947 – Everson vs. Board of Education
By this time the tide was turning and I find it interesting to note that at the time of this case, we were in the midst of World War 2.
In this case the Supreme Court used only one statement from Jefferson’s letter.
“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”.
Dr. William James (The Father of Modern Psychology) was an opponent of religious principals in government and education, induced an ideal logy that was used as early as by Julius Caesar.
He stated:
“Nothing is so absurd that if you repeat it enough, people will believe it.”
1962 – Engle vs. Vitale
This was the case that removed school prayer. The following was the prayer that was in question:
“Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”
You may find it interesting that this prayer mentions God only once while the Declaration of Independence itself mentions God 4 times. What is even more interesting is the fact that the court gave no historical precedents on which to base it’s ruling! (0 – Zero precedents) This was a complete change of policy that had served our country for nearly 200 years.
Murray vs. Curlett
Removed religious classes on the Bible.
1963 – Abington vs. Schempp
This was the case that removed Bible reading. The Supreme Court gave the following statement to base it’s finding:
“If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and had been psychologically harmful to the child”
The court made this statement despite the fact that under it’s own admission only 3% of the population of the United States professed no belief in God.
1965 – Reed vs. VanHoven
The Supreme Court stated:
“It is unconstitutional for a student to pray out loud”
1967 – DeCalb vs. DeSpain
Declared a K-5 nursery rhyme unconstitutional because it may cause someone to think of God.
1980 – Stone vs. Graham
This and 3 other cases in 1980 made it to the Supreme Court dealing with passive displays of the Ten Commandments in school hallways. This one was in Kentucky. The Supreme Court stated:
“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it would be to induce the school’s children to read, meditate upon and perhaps obey the Commandments; this is not a permissible objective.”
The Aftermath:
“We have staked the whole future of the American Civilization not on the power of Government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God”
James Madison (Chief Architect of the Constitution)
“There is no Government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to govern any other.” ` hn Adams
“As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes National sins by National calamities.”
George Mason (On the floor of the Constitutional Convention)
“Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
Thomas Jefferson (On the floor of the Constitutional Convention)
You need to only look at the state of affairs in America today to see that these statements are completely true. I have heard people say in my lifetime that they just don’t understand what has happened to America. It’s like the whole country and the world has gone insane. It is obvious that none of us today have known America as it was intended to be. The great dream of our founding fathers was to have a Christian nation. That dream has faded into obscurity. We are now told that the framers of the constitution wanted separation of church and state. Separation of the Church, yes, separation of the principals, most definitely not.
So, what has been the penalty for our downfall? Let’s look at the prayer that lead to the removal of all school prayer and look at the statistics since 1962.
“Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”
In just the 4 areas in which this prayer mentions:
1. Us (Students) – Teen pregnancy up 553% - STDs up 226% 2. Parents (Families) – Divorce up 117% - Single Parent Families up 140% 3. Teachers (Schools) – SAT scores went on an 18-year decline. 4. Country (Nation) – Violent Crime up 544%
“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principals.”
George Washington
It’s amazing that a statement from a man almost 230 years ago could fit so perfectly today. Our founding fathers were students of the Bible and devout Christian men. They knew what would happen to America in the absents of religious principals. It is almost prophetic.
America is #1!!
#1 in Violent Crime #1 in Divorce #1 in Teen Pregnancy #1 in Voluntary Abortion #1 in Illegal Drug use #1 in Illiteracy in the Industrialized World
Excellent post. I get tired of idiots quoting the Separation of Church and State as a reason for anything. A quick counter of "Where is that stated?" usually shuts them up.
Just now.....you should be able to find it now.
Actually only one was a Deist....The thing in would like to point out is that some people like to "Search for fault like there is a reward for it." You have proven that point if nothing else.
The end result of the downfall of morality not only in the US but the world in general is the fault of the organized Churches sitting on their tax exemptions and not raiseing their voice!
Supposed Christians like this Barton guy turning into serial liars would seem to be an example of the downfall of morality in this country.
"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes." -- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
If you want the truth read the Bible.....That's about the only place you will find it these days. It's up to you to believe it or not.
It was an accurate description of the America at the time; entirely Protestant with a smattering of Catholics.
And it frankly has nothing to do with separation of Church and State.
Separation of Church and State is the REASON this country is so religious, actually; no country in the world has had it for a longer time. The countries of Europe have had (and many still have) official state-supported churches.
We dispatched someidiot rather quickly. He fit my description in post 2 quite nicely.
It's in Ammendment 28. Alt least that is where the dems want to put it.
Sad but true. People will tend to accept anything they don't know anything about. Especially the koolaid left.
These covenants are the single, primary rule of law. They are a contract between man and the Creator who gave him free will, and no man-made power can prevent someone from fulfilling the obligations of that contract. These Commandments stipulate laws for ALL the people to live by- not to force a particular religious belief, but to affirm man’s position in the natural world by assuring compatibility in society.
The Commandments are prominently posted at the Supreme Court building so the highest court of the government remembered that the preservation rights took precedence over any aspirations of an artificial construction.
These commandments were placed on 2 separate tablets for a purpose.
Commandments 1 to 5 are God’s laws to man.
A violation of these is considered punishable only by God, not by man.
ONE: You shall have no other gods before Me
TWO: You shall not make for yourself a graven image
THREE: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain
FOUR: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
FIVE: Honor your father and your mother
Commandments 6 to 10 are not ONLY God’s laws to man, they are also God’s laws between men: A violation of these is considered punishable by God AND by man
SIX: You shall not murder
SEVEN: You shall not commit adultery
EIGHT: You shall not steal
NINE: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
TEN: You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's
These moral laws were already well known by Americans. When a person lied, cheated, stole, murdered, or failed to live up to a contractual obligation to someone else, that person committed a crime because they negatively and directly affected another human being.
This is what so many of the general population don't seem to understand. The Commandments ARE our laws, and words like law, crime, marriage, etc have ALREADY been defined in the Bible, but no one in the government will admit it, because of the lie of 'separation of church and state'.
But quite as cool as this one:
Wait, there isn't a "Samuel Pepys" registered to FreeRepublic?(!)
Oh, then I guess yours is cooler.
Sorry for the mistake.
Carry on then!
A poster named "someidiot" which was a good discription posted a bunch of liberal revisionist spew and he was promptly sacked. Sorry you missed it.
>> Separation of Church and State is the REASON this country is so religious.
LOL. You are some idiot!
Separation of Church and State is a new-fangled invention of the atheistic left. Only a fool would believe it.
Conspiracy Guy wrote:
--- quoting the Separation of Church and State --
A quick counter of "Where is that stated?" usually shuts them up.
______________________________________
It's not 'stated', as you say.
But rational men agree that the establishment clause doesn't need to enumerate such a separation, as long as fed, state, and local officials all obey their oaths to support our Constitutions basic principles.
The 1st's establishment & exercise clause's, as adopted:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; -- "
--- No law "respecting an establishment of religion", means no law respecting ANY of the tenets/dogmas of ANY particular religion.
The whole idea of the restriction on Congress was to 'grandfather in' the existing State supported churches.
The language used was a brilliant political compromise to satisfy the fundamentalists of the day, --- while getting across the point that the 'establishments' of any particular religion were not to be respected by elected officials sworn to uphold our individual liberties. -- A simple principle.
Church services were held in the House of Representatives chamber until 1868, and were attended by Jefferson and Madison. Services were also held in the Treasury and Supreme Court buildings.
The source of this info? The Library of Congress website.
These guys wrote the 1st Amendment, I think their practice speaks volumes about their intent.
Check out the link, it includes pictures and handwritten documents, like Jefferson's Danbury letter.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.
Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.)
As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion.
In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
Did I suggest impeachment? I must be typing with my eyes closed.
Over the last century, we've seen that when government gets involved in social issues such as the family, divorce, regulation of vices, poverty, raising of children and many other areas, the end result is usually disastrous.
Generally speaking, government is pretty good at doing things that don't involve human nature, such as killing our enemies or exploring space. However, when asked to deal with things that involve the human heart, government causes more trouble than it solves.
Knowing all this, I figure the average religious American would run screaming from any suggestion that there be any involvement of government in or with religion.
Conspiracy Guy wrote:
Did I suggest impeachment? I must be typing with my eyes closed.
______________________________________
No, -- you didn't, -- I did.
Try typing with your mind open.
There is no such thing as the "separation of church and state", the evidence being the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The false "separation of church and state" concept has "evolved" (for lack of a better word) from a grossly liberal distortion of the above clause and entrenched through an equally liberal tactic: Repeat a lie long enough and people will end up believing it.
My mind is always open. But it's obvious that we are not on the same page. You seem to be debating with me. I don't mind debate but it needs to be more direct. From what you've said so far, I don't know if I agree or disagree because I really don't know what you are talking about.
I believe government needs to stay out of religion. That doesn't mean that people in government cannot be openly religious or not religious.
I believe that people should be allowed to believe or not believe as they choose. But not allowed to force their beliefs on someone else.
I do not believe in teacher led school prayer, my kids got religion at home and church. But I do believe in a moment of silence.
I do not believe that God should be taken out of the public square.
Now if you wish to discuss any of those point or any other point state it directly and if I have time I'll reply.
At #2 you made an "idiot" comment about separation of church & state .
I replied at #30 in rebuttal.
You claim you can't understand? - Fine, we can leave it at that.
bttt
So was the shoe from post 2 fitting your foot too well!
By the way I see that once again you avoid clearly stated and precise positions.
RE posts #4 & 5. -- Dream on.
RE posts #44 & 45. -- Dream on.
I see the correction but this one makes as much sense as everything else you've said.
Take a chance sometime and lay out a clear position. It will be diffcult at first but I think you can do it.
You're making the mistake of equating religious sect with universal moral principles founded on theism. Moral absolutes based on religion are essentially the same in every monotheist religion, what to speak of Judeo-Christianity.
The "separation of Church and State" is a ficitious statement. Jefferson wrote it, but in a letter years after the founding of the country, and to a group of Baptists (IIRC) who were considered a minority religion.
Universal moral absolutes founded on religion has NOTHING to do with an established state religion, which is what the writers and signers of the Constitution wanted to repudiate.
I made a clear point at #30. You can't reply? Tough..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.