Common misconceptions about the doctrine of "church-state separation"

WallBuilders web site ^ | 2003 | David Barton

[seanmerc]

Thanks, Fred--it was straight from my heart. In my opinion, government is actually anti-faith so I can't imagine a time when they would make such a recommendation.

[FredFlash]

The government's duty is to stay out God's jurisdiction and respect the fact that man's conscience belongs to the Lord. Christ never once asked the government to assist him promulgate his teachings nor did he advise us to do it. Any religion that needs government support is not worthy of much respect. Christianity thrived for three hundred years in the face of cruel persecutions. The worst thing that ever happened to it was when Constantine elevated to the level of the pagan religions.

[mrsmith]

Amyone can go to the link above and see the many, many evidences they have there.

It always surpises me what blatant lies people tell to win their point. I guess since they don't care about truth they can't understand why other people would. Or maybe they're just having fun.

Good luck.

[FredFlash]

I assume you are talking about the link to the "Religion and the Federal Government" exhibit on the Library of Congress Web site.

I recommend that everyone go to the site, read the claims made and then click on the links to see the evidence. For example, the letter from Manasseh Cutler to Joseph Torrey which supposedly contains Cutler's observation of Jefferson in Church in the "Hall" is actually about Thomas Paine.

I downloaded all of the pages and deciphered every word of the letter over a period of months. On one page Cutler writes that Paine is a wretched being and talks about how he badmouthed President Washington for not doing more to get him out of prison in France.

There is other evidence presented in that exhibit that does not support the claims made.

[FredFlash]

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of the state and Federal Governments setting up churches?

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another?

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of forcing or influencing a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion?

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of punishing persons for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance?

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of taxes to support religious activities or institutions to teach or practice religion?

Do you believe there was an American religious tradition of state or the Federal Government openly or secretly participating in the affairs of religious organizations or groups, and vice versa?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>What is anti-religious about prohibiting the government from establishing a legal duty of an individual to contribute to the financial support of religion.<<<

It depends on your definition of "religion". The religion of the left is secularism, marxism and/or abortion; and individuals are forced to contribute to their wacky causes via their tax dollars. Yet I don't hear you screaming against that. Rather, your entire agenda appears to be anti-Christian.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>If Justice Black undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses then why don’t you tell me in a sentence or two just what the clauses do mean and why?<<<

His own biographer made that statement, and Mark Levin agrees. Black's statement, "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", was a lie in the manner he intended it, because his intent was strip the states of its power over religion, which was a usurpation of power by the court. Even Jefferson did not believe the First Amendment restricted the states. Of course, you knew that.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>How did Justice Black provide anti-Christian ammunition by acknowledging James Madison’s authority on the meaning of the religion clauses, a policy adopted by the Court in 1878 in the matter of Reynolds v. United States?<<<

Explained in post #67.

[FredFlash]

My agenda is to destroy all government power over religion; Christians don't take religious advice from the government; nor do they use the government to express their faith. That is what Satan Worshipers do because their religion is false and cannot stand up for itself. When a religion needs government support - it is Satan's religion.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>What is anti-religious about prohibiting the government from establishing a legal duty of an individual to contribute to the financial support of religion. I will contribute to the financial support of the religion that God tells me to contribute to. My duty is to God, and if you and the government don't like it, the both of you can go back to the Temple of Satan where you worship or take a holiday in hell.<<<

Frankly, sonny, I always assumed Satan would sound just like you.

[FredFlash]

Ok Oliver

[FredFlash]

Point out a sentence or two in Justice Black's opinion that you believe provides anti-Christian ammunition or shut up and go stand over there with all the other little boys that make claims they can't prove.

---

MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that CONGRESS SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION, AND ENFORCED THE LEGAL OBSERVATION OF IT BY LAW, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to CONGRESS TO MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY INTO EXECUTION THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS MADE UNDER IT, ENABLED THEM TO MAKE LAWS OF SUCH A NATURE AS MIGHT INFRINGE THE >>>> RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE <<<<, AND ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RELIGION; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:
Black's statement, "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", was a lie in the manner he intended it, because his intent was strip the states of its power over religion, which was a usurpation of power by the court.


I say:
Have you ever read the Fourteenth Amendment; what makes you more of an authority than James Madison; and can you distinguish between the name of a legal concept and its substantive legal or intellectual content?

Justice Black's opinion mentioned James Madison eighty seven times. The substantive law established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) was derived from the writings of James Madison. Thomas Jefferson's only contribution was to give the concept the name that it had already been awarded by the American people.

[UCANSEE2]

The whole issue is mainly due to the media's insistence on leaving out a few words.

The CONCEPT, the CONCERN, was about the separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE.

Not about separation of CHURCH and STATE.

[FredFlash]

I have examined the following claims of Dr. Daniel Dreisbach:

The "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor was the central theme of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education.

My opinion is:

Determining the fundamental premise of a Supreme Court Opinion requires a very close examination of the Court’s opinion. A good way to start might be to read the opinion and identify the religious liberty issues, concepts and principles mentioned in the opinion and determine how many times each is mentioned.

The religious liberty issue, concept or principle, most frequently mentioned in Everson, is government authority over religion. There are at least fifteen such references.

The fifteen references to government authority include references to:

· Government authority to compel an individual to contribute to the financial support of religion.
· Government authority to punish individuals for their religions sentiments.
· Government authority to punish individuals for speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers.
· Government authority to punish individuals for non-attendance at religious meetings.
· Stripping the government of all authority to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

Other religious liberty issues, concepts or principles, mentioned in Everson are:

· The concept of a man’s duty to obey the dictates of his conscience.
· The concept that true religion did not need the support of law.
· The concept that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions
· The concept that Almighty God hath created the mind free.
· The concept of separating religions and government
· The concept of government neutrality on religion
· The concept of Separation of Church and State

Based on the number of times the concept was mentioned, I conclude that the central theme or fundamental premise of the Everson opinion is that government has no legitimate authority over religion. The concept of Separation of Church and State is mentioned only once. I see no way anyone who actually read the decision could possibly conclude that Separation of Church and State was the central theme of the Everson Decision.

[Always Right]

Frankly, sonny, I always assumed Satan would sound just like you.

He does. Flash is one of the most disingenuous posters on this forum.

[Always Right]

The CONCEPT, the CONCERN, was about the separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE. Not about separation of CHURCH and STATE.

Flash loves 1/2 of the First Amendment, but fails to recognize the half about freedom of religious expression. Flash is well read on the subject of trying to get religion out of the public square. However Flash doesn't care that the IRS make churches register and can penalize churches if they do not abide by the rules. Flash's main objective seems to be suppress religious expression, not to protect it. In Flash's reality, any mention of religion by a public official is Satan worshiping and they are bound to hell. He has accused George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Patrick Henry of being satan-worshipers along with anyone who disagrees with his views. He is a liberal who pretends to care about religious expression, but only really cares about religious oppression.

[FredFlash]

You are correct if you mean that the religion clauses were intended to separate the power, authority and jurisdiction of God from that of Caesar when you wrote that, "The CONCEPT, the CONCERN, was about the separation of the POWERS of CHURCH and STATE."


The Separation of Church and State (I speak of the pure sacred just and truly Christian Madison-Jefferson type of Separation of Religion and Government) is all about separating (aka distinguishing or dividing) the power/authority/jurisdiction of the government (aka civil, temporal, worldly or Cesar) from that of religion (aka church, duty owed to the Creator, eternal, ecclesiastical or God.

[FredFlash]

The official records of the First U. S. Congress show that during the legislative process that produced the religion clauses the concern most often expressed was that of infringement on the right of conscience. The right of conscience was mentioned fifteen times by five different legislators.

The concern for an establishment of a national religion was mentioned three times by only one legislator. I exclude Elbridge Gerry's the "Federalist are Rats" comment because although he used the word "national" he was refering to the Federalist Party.

Representative Daniel Carroll (Maryland), in the excerpt presented below , expresses his support for a strict separation of religion and government that would prohibit the government for even touching religon and the right of conscience.

************************************************************

Saturday, August 15, 1789:

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'

MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)

[FredFlash]

The meaning of the establishment clause is, “We Don't Need No Stinkin Advice From The Government On Religion.”