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

B. M. C.

[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.