Separation of Church & State

Another great article.. Footnotes can be found on the site if you want references.

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton



In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “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.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . 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 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Separation of Church & State (cont'd)

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

get it back on the 'new posts' section...

Church <-----here














State <------here

They're seperate!!!!!!! The way they were supposed to be! The damn right way.

Your article in a nutshell

Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.

Click to expand...

The Consitution is almost as confusing as the Bible. Today People do see the seperation as a protection of the state while it's actual purpose has always been protection of the Church.

Question: Who cares? Christians shouldn't want the separation to end.

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

At the risk of a thrashing...


The last time our government was solidly influenced by religion people were getting burned at the stake.


My $.02, for what it's worth.

America: Not a Christian Nation!
by Dean Worbois


No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our spiritual selves. What is surprising is when fundamentalist Christians think the Founding Fathers' faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again: "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson: "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
[Editor's note: Jefferson used this word to describe what he considered false teachings placed into the mouth of Christ, as opposed to what he considered the true teachings of Christ. He never used this word to describe the entire Bible.]

John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they -- the Baptists -- who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance, folks. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.

Winter 1996

by David Barton



Religious Founders? Read Their Writings


Among the liberties protected by our Constitution is the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion." Yet, over the past half-century, that once inalienable liberty has been greatly subjugated to the arbitrary whims of the Justices by a series of hostile and absurd Court decisions. In fact, the current Court's micromanagement of religious expressions prompted Justice Anthony Kennedy to characterize it as a "national theology board." [1]


Recent attempts to limit public religious expression and to vilify people of faith have met widespread public opposition. The results of this backlash have manifested in numerous areas, including: (1) the landslide elections of evangelical Congressmen in 1994; (2) public support for a constitutional amendment to protect religious liberties reaching an all-time high of seventy-three percent; [2] and (3) the recent Congressional introduction of a widely-supported constitutional amendment which would safeguard religious expressions.

However, there are groups and individuals whose goal of a secular society is clearly threatened by these changes. But what can they do to diminish the improving public climate toward religion? They can do what they have always done: misportray, distort, and/or ignore the truth. Those who become particularly skillful at this are termed "revisionists."

Yet, the Founders' own declarations in their last wills and testaments 5 disprove those assertions and speak loud and clear that the great majority of our Founders were indeed believers in Jesus Christ. For example:

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God. [6] John Quincy Adams

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. [12] Thomas Jefferson

This is only excerpts... If you want to see the references to the original writings and not someon's opinions, see the link.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=58

"The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government"

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

I think it's pretty clear that the Bible and the principles/morals given in it were used for the foundation of this country. These are quotes from the founders, not someones opinion of what the founders believed.

As the world learned most recently from the Taliban, a government controlled by a religious movement is incompatible with democracy. Democracy draws its strength from the open, honest discussion of issues. They assume that intelligent people can have different opinions on things.

Theocracy, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that if you disagree with the state, you're evil and wicked. Not much different from secular totalitarianism.

Originally posted by Tonio
As the world learned most recently from the Taliban, a government controlled by a religious movement is incompatible with democracy. Democracy draws its strength from the open, honest discussion of issues. They assume that intelligent people can have different opinions on things.

Theocracy, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that if you disagree with the state, you're evil and wicked. Not much different from secular totalitarianism.

Click to expand...

I agree that the government/country should not be controlled/operated by a religous group. It would be unfair for the members of the other religions. Just like what happens to Christians in countries like Afghanistan. Or the former Russia.

I don't even think it should be influenced.

Originally posted by darkriver4362
I don't even think it should be influenced.

Click to expand...

That's a very good comment, do you think you could expand on it it a little... I think it is a thin line. I think it is great the we have freedom of religion, but I think it would be disastrous if you completely remove it's influence from our government. I don't like condoning religion b/c I don't really support religion. I plainly believe in God's Word. Alot of religions twist the mearnings of the Word. I make a habit of reading the Bible and trying to interpret it myself. Then when I hear someone trying to twist the word, I have something to stand on. The biggest problem I have with alot of churches is that they condone being poor, like it is some sort of badge of honor. I understand the humble mentality and that our focus should be on God, but I also think that he wants us to prosper and set good examples. Anyway, that's way of track. I think our founding fathers did a great job of establishing this country. I just hate to see religious rights stripped away. I hate to see prayer taken out of schools. I think the children should be allowed a time to pray if they want or not. At least it gives them the opportunity. I hate it when liberal activist try to strip the words "one nation under God" from our pledge. These are the things that bother me....

Originally posted by ceo_pte
That's a very good comment, do you think you could expand on it it a little... I think it is a thin line. I think it is great the we have freedom of religion, but I think it would be disastrous if you completely remove it's influence from our government. I don't like condoning religion b/c I don't really support religion. I plainly believe in God's Word. Alot of religions twist the mearnings of the Word. I make a habit of reading the Bible and trying to interpret it myself. Then when I hear someone trying to twist the word, I have something to stand on. The biggest problem I have with alot of churches is that they condone being poor, like it is some sort of badge of honor. I understand the humble mentality and that our focus should be on God, but I also think that he wants us to prosper and set good examples. Anyway, that's way of track. I think our founding fathers did a great job of establishing this country. I just hate to see religious rights stripped away. I hate to see prayer taken out of schools. I think the children should be allowed a time to pray if they want or not. At least it gives them the opportunity. I hate it when liberal activist try to strip the words "one nation under God" from our pledge. These are the things that bother me....

Click to expand...

Thanks, alls that I think is that politics should be just that, politics, no religious influence on the creation of laws. I don't care what religion you are, jew, christian, muslim, satanist, I have freinds that are all of them, I just don't want any religion's influence on a law that I'd have to follow, that's the best I can explain it.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I hate it when liberal activist try to strip the words "one nation under God" from our pledge. These are the things that bother me....

Click to expand...

While I consider myself a middle-roader, I think that phrase sets a dangerous precedent. It mixes religious doctrine with patriotic feeling. It assumes that one has to be a Christian (or at least a monotheist) to be an true-blue American. Scary stuff.

That phase was put in the Pledge during the early days of the Cold War, when hyperpatriots in Congress wanted to prove that we were better than those godless Commies. Sounds to me like feelings of inadequacy. We never needed to prove that democracy and religious freedom are better than totalitarianism and repression. The benefits of our way of life speak for themselves.

Also, children praying by themselves in school is perfectly Constitutional. Teacher-led prayer is definitely not. I don't pay taxes so my kids' teachers can push a certain religious viewpoint on them, whether it's Christianity or atheism.

Originally posted by Tonio
While I consider myself a middle-roader, I think that phrase sets a dangerous precedent. It mixes religious doctrine with patriotic feeling. It assumes that one has to be a Christian (or at least a monotheist) to be an true-blue American. Scary stuff.

That phase was put in the Pledge during the early days of the Cold War, when hyperpatriots in Congress wanted to prove that we were better than those godless Commies. Sounds to me like feelings of inadequacy. We never needed to prove that democracy and religious freedom are better than totalitarianism and repression. The benefits of our way of life speak for themselves.

Also, children praying by themselves in school is perfectly Constitutional. Teacher-led prayer is definitely not. I don't pay taxes so my kids' teachers can push a certain religious viewpoint on them, whether it's Christianity or atheism.

Click to expand...

I think it's great that you stand-up for what the "School" shouldn't be teaching your children. But what about what they are teaching them. For example.... You can't teach creation but you can teach evolution. Hence you can't teach them about God and Creation, but it's ok for you to force them to learn, 'why scientist think the Bible is wrong.' You can't hand our Bibles but you can hand out Condoms.

As for the 'one Nation UNDER GOD', this is where our beliefs differ and where you don't see what I see in the foundation of our country.

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I think it's great that you stand-up for what the "School" shouldn't be teaching your children. But what about what they are teaching them. For example.... You can't teach creation but you can teach evolution. Hence you can't teach them about God and Creation, but it's ok for you to force them to learn, 'why scientist think the Bible is wrong.' You can't hand our Bibles but you can hand out Condoms.

As for the 'one Nation UNDER GOD', this is where our beliefs differ and where you don't see what I see in the foundation of our country.

Click to expand...

When they talk about evolution, they say at the beginning, or at least my teacher did, he said, Depending upon what you beleive.....

The under god thing can go both ways....even if you don't believe in god or maybe believe in multiples, you can say it but don't mean it. But I do beleive we should take it out if it in fact has been added to the original.

ceo_pte said:

...the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination...

Click to expand...

The First Amendment, whatever it means, does not in any way alter the fact that the U. S. Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers, and reserved all others to the states or to the people. It is a popular government. Those who administer it are responsible to the people. It may be altered, and amended, and abolished at the will of the people. In short, it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people. It grants the U. S. Government no authority whatsoever religion. As James Madison said, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation." (James Madison, June 12, 1788 speaking to delegates of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention, against Patrick Henry's assertions, "The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787" Vol III, page 330, by John Elliot. 1888)

ceo_pte said:

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Click to expand...

"Separation of Church and State", as the phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, means no civil authority over the duty we owe to our Creator. David Barton does not claim that the "concept" of no civil power over religion was rarely mentioned. Barton claims only that a certain "phrase" was rarely used to designated and distinguished the intellectual concept from others. Barton knows that fundamentalists and other weak minded persons lack the intelligence to distinguish the intellectual content of a "concept" from a "phrase" employed to identify it.

Thomas Jefferson did not invent the concept of Separation of Religion from Government. Jefferson borrowed it from the Baptists.

Over the years, Separation of Religion from Government has been identified by many appellations. In the 1630's, Roger Williams called it "Soul Liberty." In the 1770's, Elisah Williams called it the "right of private judgment in matters of religion." Founding Father Isaac Backus called it "No human authority." James Madison called it by many names including "the full and equal rights of conscience."

ceo_pte said:

Another great article.. Footnotes can be found on the site if you want references.

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “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.”

Click to expand...

Why would anyone, acting in good faith, commence an essay on the Constitutional Principle of Separation of Church and State by quoting dicta from the Supreme Court case styled "Everson v. Board Of Education" (1947), instead of with the hallowed words of the U. S. Constitution, which clearly delegate no authority whatsoever over religion to the U. S. Government. It was the non-delegation of power over religion that established what James Madison designated and denominated "the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States?"

This goes to the post. I agree with the separation of church and state.
I am not sure what exactly should be allowed but at the same time I know what shouldn't be allowed.

Praying around flagpoles - a no no. Because 1 prays around the US Flag does not make their religion any greater. The US Flag represents all religions in America or lack thereof and because you hold prayer around a flagpole doesn't mean squat. It doesn't make you a better person in doing so, regardless of your religion.

I think that a moment of silence is appropriate to remember the fallen etc... but anything more than that is in violation of the "separation of church and state".

Some things should be understood. Such as... The Pledge of Allegiance.

"One nation under God" doesn't qualify as a violation of Separation of church and state. Someone suing to change that eh... its always been there, and you don't have to agree with it... You can choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance if you so choose. Freedom of speech right?

The Dollar Bill...
I don't believe we should change our currency because its in some sort of violation of the constitution. To do so, would cost millions and be pointless... Someone is going to have to suck it up.

I heard recently that there was someone who swore in on the Koran instead of the bible. I think thats reasonable. I believe that if the Koran holds more value to that person than the bible does, and the bible is a meaningless book to that person, then they should have that right. I would rather someone stand up for what they believe in, rather than get someone who just goes with the flow and is just going to swear in on a meaningless book.

As far as what is being taught in schools. I think that they should continue to teach their current classes on theories of evolution etc. They can teach whatever it is to graduate these days. However its important to know that the word THEORIES falls before any of these teachings, whether its evolution, darwinism, christianity big bang, etc.

As far as handing out condoms instead of bibles.... well.... In todays age and society, bibles haven't been stopping pregnancy and STD's in our todays younger generation. Its going to become a public epidemic... between teen pregnancy and STD's if the government doesn't attempt to curb what is going on. I know in Charles County there is DAYCARE in the schools, because the dropout rate was so high due to teen pregnancy, and the state demanded that they cannot cheat on their SAT scores by forcing pregnant students out of school. So now you can get pregnant your freshmen year, and get pregnant your senior year, and still graduate HS in the state of maryland. What an accomplishment! Handing out condoms is a slight attempt to fix todays problems in society. The rise in numbers of teen single mothers in America just goes to show that the whole "shotgun wedding" philosophy failed. Handing out condoms isn't an attack on religion, anymore than handing out latex gloves is.

And why hand out bibles? why not the Torah? Or the Koran? Exactly. If you cater to 1 religion, you must cater to all. To do so, would take too much time and effort... It shows state sponsership for religion. That cannot be tolerated.