The Separation of Church and State Myth:Why God MUST Be Acknowledged.

B. M. C.

[Arkansas Boy]

The Separation of Church and State Myth: Why God MUST be acknowledged.

How many of you have heard the term Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution? How many of you know that the Constitution does not even contain that phase? I would like to address a very important issue– an issue upon which the future of our nation rests: The issue is whether or not our government will acknowledge God.

The First Amendment is the main defense of those who wish to keep God out of our law and government. These folks say that the First Amendment is supposed to erect a barrier of “Separation between Church and State”. This is simply not true. The fact is, the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is not found in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution simply states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . (it goes on to discuss freedom of the press, etc.)

Known as the “Establishment Clause”, this amendment was meant to protect religious freedom by giving the churches protection from the government, not the government protection from the churches. Let me explain: When America’s forefathers fled England, they were seeking freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. They did not want the government to meddle with Christendom and establish a "National Church" which would impair other denominations, as King James had done by establishing the Church of England.

Our founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, acknowledge the founders’ dependence upon God. The Declaration alone refers to the Sovereign Creator four times as “God”, “Creator”, “The Supreme Judge of the World”, and “Divine Providence”.

This nation was explicitly founded upon Christian principles, upon the God of the Holy Bible, but not upon one particular Christian denomination. This is further evidenced in the writings of our forefathers! Patrick Henry, the great revolutionary leader, said it best:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

While other people may be free to practice Buddhism, Hinduism, or Humanism on our soil, we are STILL a nation governed by Biblical principles. Our laws were not established on some trivial ideals, but on the solid and unchanging Word of God. The rally cry of the Revolutionary War was “No King but King Jesus!” It is on this very foundation that America was born, and it is upon this very foundation that the future of America rests.

Some people think “There’s no place for God in government”. What they don’t realize is that when God is cut out, something else must be put in. Removing God and His principles from government never results in neutrality, but always results in the government stepping in and “playing god”. When God is rejected, the government is not held to any absolute. They become the highest authority. Right and wrong becomes whatever the government says it is. When God is not in the picture our liberties are no longer recognized as “God-given”, but rather as “State-given”. The people’s unalienable rights and the people’s authority over their government is no longer recognized by the public servants, because there is no recognized authority higher than themselves. When the government does not acknowledge God as Sovereign, the government becomes a law unto itself. This is called tyranny, and this is what our forefathers tenaciously fought against.

For years now, God has been generally cut out of education, society, and government. Tolerance has become the rallying cry! But, as one wise gentleman once said, “The only thing tolerance tolerates is tolerance.” Folks, tolerance only tolerates God and the Bible when they are kept in a closet! God’s principles have been hushed in public circles. Why are we surprised when the phrase “one nation, under God” is attacked in the Pledge of Allegiance? God is being taken out of our legal system, and the Ten Commandments are being stripped from public view because they offend. Why, then, should we be surprised when the murder of millions of innocent babies is called “legal” by our courts? Why, now, are we shocked when the sacred and God-given institution of marriage is assaulted and perverted? Will we continue to sit quietly by, and watch our State and nation rot into moral perversion like Sodom and Gomorrah? We have rejected God Almighty, the Author of Liberty. Are we surprised, then, to see that our liberties are being severed, and that we are being put, shackle by shackle, under the bonds of slavery? The Bible says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” “God bless America” I hear folks cry! But, can we expect the blessing of the very God we reject? The Bible says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a crisis. However, the blame does not rest only in Washington or with our public officials. The blame rests on us. The condition of our government reflects the condition of our people.

In the Bible, God says, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

My friends, we must repent for OUR rebellion against God. This is the only way God’s blessing can be restored to our land.

Then may we earnestly demand, through constitutional means, that our State and national governments return to the God who birthed them! The decision is ours. God save us, and God Save America.

[FredFlash]

Are religious proclamations proper under First Amendment?

[FredFlash]

If Separation is a Myth then explain this for me please


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REJECTED THE GOSPEL IN 1801

If the founder’s intended for the U. S. Government to support the Gospel, the House of Representatives of the sixth Congress (1801) didn’t much care. The Republican-Democrats in the House must have chuckled when they saw that the Satan Worshipers from New England who settled the Ohio Territory were silly enough to believe that double-talk in Article III of the Northwest Ordinance and actually believed that the federal government was going to support their worship of Lucifer in the Territory. Presented below is the official entry of the petition for the support of the Gospel excerpted from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States for January 2, 1801:


A petition of sundry citizens and inhabitants of the county of Wayne, in the territory of the United States Northwest of the Ohio, was presented to the House and praying that a township of land belonging to the United States may be appropriated in the said county for the SUPPORT OF THE GOSPEL, and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. Ordered, That the said petition be referred to Mr. Pinckney, Mr. M'Millan, Mr. Imlay, Mr. Elizur Goodrich, and Mr. Kittera.


See it at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_r6fz

Note: The Wayne County petition was never reported out of committee; and the Ohio Supreme some years later ruled that the language Article III did not require the government to support religion in Ohio.

[FredFlash]

Why are the religious beliefs of the founders so important to you?

[FredFlash]

The only Christian doctrine I see in the Constitution is the Baptist Doctrine of Soul Liberty aka the Separation of Church and State. Do you know its Scriptural basis?

[FredFlash]

The Post Office law that required the violation of the Sabbath by mandating that the mail was to move on Sunday was contemptuous of Christian beliefs and doctrines, or so many thought. But Congress refused to change it in 1830.

[FredFlash]

Bozo said:

How many of you have heard the term Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution? How many of you know that the Constitution does not even contain that phase?

I say:

That has got to be one of the all-time most dimwitted arguments ever advanced in the debate over the meaning of the First Amendment and the right of conscience. It reveals that the proponent is a sucker for ridiculous lines of reasoning. Using the same silly logic that underlies this argument, I could conclusively prove that the founders intended “One Nation Under Satan” and that the object of the federal government is to propagate sin by stamping “In Satan We Trust” on money. If you disagree - then show me the Separation of Satan and State in the Constitution?

[FredFlash]

---

Saint George Tucker

---

Saint George Tucker published in 1803 the first comprehensive systematic explanation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights after both became official law. Tucker was a friend and political co-conspirator with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. He was a Revolutionary War hero, a lawyer, Virginia Judge, Federal Judge, Secretary of the Treasury and was appointed to the most prestigious position in legal education at the time - the George Wythe Chair at William and Mary. George Wythe was the gentleman that taught Thomas Jefferson the law.


Tucker’s commentary was the authority in the Early Republic. Law schools taught from it and every lawyer, judge and statesman owned a copy. Tucker believed that the Separation of Government and Religion was “the only means by which our duty to God, the peace of mankind, and the genuine fruits of charity and fraternal love, can be preserved or properly discharged.” Presented below is an excerpt from Tucker’s writings on what he believed the First Amendment meant. I crackup every time I read his “mounds of separation” metaphor - The Mounds of Separation of Between Civil and Religious Institutions.


St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, 1:App. 296--97, 2:App. 3—11 - 1803


The pretext of religion, and the pretences of sanctity and humility, have been employed throughout the world, as the most direct means of gaining influence and power. Hence the numberless martyrdoms and massacres which have drenched the whole earth with blood, from the first moment that civil and religious institutions were blended together. TO SEPARATE THEM BY MOUNDS WHICH CAN NEVER BE OVERLEAPED, is the only means by which our duty to God, the peace of mankind, and the genuine fruits of charity and fraternal love, can be preserved or properly discharged. This prohibition, therefore, may be regarded as the most powerful cement of the federal government, or rather, the violation of it will prove the most powerful engine of separation. Those who prize the union of the states will never think of touching this article with unhallowed hands. The ministry of the unsanctified sons of Aaron scarcely produced a flame more sudden, more violent, or more destructive, than such an attempt would inevitably excite. . . . I forbear to say more, in this place, upon this subject, having treated of it somewhat at large in a succeeding note.


See the whole thing at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions59.html

[atlaw]

The Holy Bible is where America's forefathers gleaned much of their knowledge to write the Constitution of these United States.

Can you refer me to those passages in the Constitution that (1) quote the Bible, (2) are borrowed in part from the Bible, (3) paraphrase the Bible, or (4) reference or cite the Bible?

[FredFlash]

So you were lying when you said the Bible defined the word "Christian?"

[Always Right]

So you were lying when you said the Bible defined the word "Christian?"

I never said the Bible defined Christian, so I am not the one misrepresenting arguements.

[conservative_crusader]

I'm afraid that you have just committed a serious fallacy. Just because a separation of Church and State (or Satan and state) is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean there is or is not one. The First Amendment's purpose was not to abolish religion. The First amendment clearly states on the issue of religion that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Hypothetically, I would not have a problem if a satanist were in office in the senate or some other legislative, judicial or executive office, so long as that person could gather the unaltered votes of the people that he represents (The same goes for Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Deists, Hindus, and Jews).

In the meantime, allow me to criticize you for posting on a thread that was a few weeks old when you first posted to me, and for sending the same post to at least three different people using a different post number for each post person addressed.

[FredFlash]

You wrote: I'm afraid that you have just committed a serious fallacy.

I write: I committed the fallacy only to mock those who employ it.

---

You wrote: The First Amendment's purpose was not to abolish religion.

I write: I know, I just picked out Peter Sylvester’s comments and built a doctrine on it to mock those who do such things.

---

Please accept my apology – I am new to this – Slap me down if I cross the line cause I don’t yet see them all.

[linda_22003]

He attended the church I attend now. We sit in the Washington family pew, some Sundays.

[FredFlash]

Your case that James Madison was not a Christian is weak.

"Religious bondage" does shackle the mind but that does not mean that Christianity does. Christianity can either shackle the mind or liberate it. Christianity that embraces the doctrine of separating civil and religous authority does the latter. Christianity that rejects the doctrine is what they practice in Satan's Church.

[FredFlash]

I bet I can show you, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a legal principle based on a Protestant theological doctrine.

[Always Right]

He attended the church I attend now. We sit in the Washington family pew, some Sundays.

While watching Brokeback Mountin I imagine.

[linda_22003]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm talking about an Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia. I have no clue what your post is supposed to mean.

[Always Right]

I was wondering what you were talking about. When you said he attends church, were you referring to George Washington? I thought you were being facetious with your comment.

[linda_22003]

Yes, to George Washington. That would have been apparent if you had read the post I was responding to. I am not being facetious. The church was built in 1773; it was there for him and it is there for me.