Separation of Church & State

[FredFlash]

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.

That is because you don't know what the fundamental principle of religious liberty is.

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.

The fundamental principle of religious liberty is no civil power over the duty we owe the Creator. It is not whether the act "makes religion greater." It is whether the act was influence by civil authority.

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".

The fundamental principle is no civil power over the duty we owe the Creator. A moment of silence may or may not be an establishment of religion. It all depends on the facts of the case. The test is whether civil authority influenced religion.

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 test is whether the act of saying "One nation under God" was a religious act and whether it was influenced by civil authority. The duty of a man to submit to the authority of God is a religious duty. It is one of the "things that are God's" that the Lord commanded us (in Matthew 22:21) not to submit to the civil authority. The law that inserted "under God" into the Pledge was an act intended to influence a religious duty. The law should be repealed.

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.

The test is whether the act of placing "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins was a religious act and whether it was influenced by civil authority. The duty of a man to trust in God is a religious duty. In John 14:1 Jesus Comforts His Disciples with the words "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me.

"Trust in God" is one of the "things that are God's" that the Lord commanded us (in Matthew 22:21) not to submit to the civil authority. The law that placed "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins was an act intended to influence a religious duty. The law should therefore be repealed as a trespass upon the prerogatives of Christ.

 

[TruPeace]

Christendom started off by being approved by the state. "Constantine". If you translated, had or even read a bible at that time you were executed by who? Christendom or what is know as the world's "Christianity".

 

[FredFlash]

Christendom started off by being approved by the state. "Constantine".

Christianity existed and flourished for about 313 years before Constantine elevated it to legal status.

 

[FredFlash]

America: Not a Christian Nation!
by Dean Worbois

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."

Without exception? You're as bad as the Counterfeit Christians of the Religious Wrong, dude.

 

[FredFlash]

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.

David Barton is obviously not a First Amendment scholar. The phrase invoked by the Everson Court in 1947 was taken from a previous Supreme Court decision rendered in 1878. If Barton had actually read the Everson decision he would have known this.

...the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

--EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)​

The historical facts don't square with Barton's conspiratorial theories and skewed view of American history, so he just lies, by omission, about the U. S. Supreme Court adopting the famous "wall of separation between Church and State" phrase back in 1878.

 

[FredFlash]

The Constitution is almost as confusing as the Bible. Today People do see the separation 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

The purpose of what Jefferson called "Separation of Church and State" is irrelevant, with respect to the objective ascertainment of the "will of the legislator", that adopted the U. S. Constitution, at the time the instrument was given legal effect.

Daniel Webster pronounced the truth when he wrote, "The people,...erected this government. They gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it.. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted..."

"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is," according to venerated Associate U. S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, "to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words...He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use..."

There are no words in the Constitution that could be reasonably construed to grant the government any jurisdiction whatsoever over religion. No civil authority over religion, or the exemption of religion from the cognizance of civil authority, is what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Party sometimes referred to as "Separation of Church and State."

The political principle of no civil authority over religion was not originated by Thomas Jefferson and his writings after the Constitution was adopted are not natural and probable signs of "the will of the legislator at the time the Constitution was adopted." The words of the Constitution are the most natural and probable sign of the will of the legislator at the time the instrument was adopted.