Skip to comments.(VANITY) Anyone Else Tired of the Talk About the "Constitution's Separation of Church and State?"
Posted on 06/28/2002 5:46:46 AM PDT by agenda_express
I know that this has come up in various forums before, but since the 9th Circuit's decision on the 26th, much of the liberal media's discussion has centered around the supposed "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution
I am sick and tired of all of the leftist commentary recently regarding this supposed "separation of church and state." There is NO SUCH comment in the Constitution!!! When are they going to get that through their thick skulls? Since when is outside commentary by someone who did NOT help frame the Constitution allowed to be constued as being relevant to the Constitution itself??? Not only that, but it has been used to define the meaning of the amendment itself!
Jefferson's comments are TOTALLY taken out of context. This is ridiculous. I wish the government indoctrination center's would stop teaching revisionist history, and start teaching the truth.
Even worse is a CNN Poll today:
"Do you agree with the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state?"
What a load of crap! There is no way to correctly answer that...
(stands to take the impending beating like a man)
Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state.
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.
So by whatever means it has come about, the SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means -- by the agreement of all branches of government. Therefore their interpretations are also Constitutional.
They've mapped out a seperation between church and state. Therefore that is the law of the land. Get used to it.
I don't know if this is a cleaver trick by CNN, or total stupidity on their part.
My 14 yr old son has been exposed to a lot of talk radio while going to and from baseball and basketball games. Then last night, while flipping through the TV channels, after hearing some bimbette spew her revisionist garbage, I explained to him the lack of "separation of church and state" vs the existance and meaning of "Congress shall make no law". He understood the difference. Then he said: "Dad, you should be a politician." I think he meant it as a compliment, which means I still have some more work to do with him :-)
Link to a good overview of the history of the phrase, "separation of church and state" (and of course you're right, it does NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution -- but it DOES appear in the SOVIET constitution):
No need to be sorry, there are many of us out here that understand, and appreciate, your frustrations with this matter. Hang in there as you are doing good works by raising awareness to this increasingly dangerous problem.
How the SCOTUS could interpret:
Article the third [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.
To mean that the govt. should harbor blatant hostility towards religion is simply laughable. And the infection of liberals and democrats continues to fester
Guns Before Butter.
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.