Why is it so difficult for some to not see that there was never a "separation of church and state" intended during the pen of the First Amendment. Because some groups of people or organizations say it is so doesn't make it so. History documentation is what should rule.
Let's look at the Amendment: "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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you see anything that mentions "separation of church and state"?
It says, Congress shall make no law. It doesn't say established groups either. Now, I am an individual and I should be allowed to express my feelings about my beliefs. If I am not allowed to speak or express my feelings about my beliefs, then that would be "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When certain organized individuals or groups tell us what we can or cannot do with our thoughts or expressions, or how we will conduct or carry out those thoughts or expressions, we are being "abridged" upon. There is so much history documented to prove what our Founding Fathers truly felt or intended regarding the First Amendment. Alan Sears, in his book, The ACLU vs. America, states, "What the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote the First Amendment was only that the federal government-and only federal government's Congress-was to be prohibited from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or requiring that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or the federal government. It did not mean that the government could censor public religious expression, deny churches and religious organizations equal access to public facilities, or the church and government could not work together."
I challenge you, Mr. and Mrs. American, to read the documentation of what went into building our Constitution and those individuals behind it (see link and references below), and decide for yourselves on the suspected issue of "separation of church and state." And, while you are at it Mr. and Mrs. American, you may want to read the history of the ACLU's founding authors' beliefs, and intentions. I believe you will find it to be an eye-opener to the power and destruction that has been perpetuated against "We the people..."
Ref: The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.
Alliance Defense Fund
First Amendment, U.S. Constitution; http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1.
http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/religion/oldspeak-dreisbach2.asp
See Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 113 S.CT. 2141 (1993).
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/ACLU_Slams_JROTC_as_Violation_of_International_Law_5684.html
Why is it so difficult for some to not see that there was never a "separation of church and state" intended during the pen of the First Amendment. Because some groups of people or organizations say it is so doesn't make it so. History documentation is what should rule. 
6 comments:
Sandy, Whatever you do professionally, don't take up law as an occupation! Expecially constitutional law! You might also want to stay away from history.
You wouldn't be too good at it.
Alan and other interested parties.
The fact you chose to attack me personally by innuendo, only shows you would rather critize me than what I wrote. A casual reading of the 1st Amendment will show it was accurately quoted and historically correct.
Believe me, I've read the first amendment, more than once, and more than causally! I've also read more than one book about it, and they were not written by a crack pot religious ideologue.
Political liberty and freedom, in general, mean the separation of the government from our private lives. The church is part of our private lives, our own personal religious beliefs. Therefore, in the sphere of religion, religious liberty means separation of church and state. The establishment clause, as opposed to the free exercise clause, specifically and clearly makes this point. That is why there are two clauses, not one.
As far as the states' rights argument, that went out with slavery and the adoption of the 14th amendment. You've heard of the civil war, haven't you? Just as freedom of speech is now incorporated into the 14th amendment, and state law cannot abridge our freedom of speech, so to with religious liberty. The first amendment has been fully incorporated into the 14th amendment and now the states cannot establish religion.
So if you are an individual and you should be allowed to express your feelings about your beliefs, why are you so keen on giving your state government the power to prohibit you from doing so?
This is not just a states' rights issue. I want to see what was
established by our Founding Fathers protected. The authors of the Constitution wanted to assure the people that the government would not establish a "church" such as England. The Founding Fathers did not say the people could not participate in their government by contributing their religious thoughts or beliefs. I want people to be aware of how a few powerful individuals, by twisting the facts or misinterpreting the Constitution, are causing our personal freedoms to be taken away from us. We are losing so much due to "left wing" extremists who feel that if we don't agree with them that we must be perpetrating some type of discrimination or "hate" upon them. They seem to think that if we are not tolerant of their beliefs, or agree with how they wish to conduct their lives, then we do not have the right
to say so without them crying "hate" speech. Furthermore, I resent them wanting to push their beliefs upon me and my family. Tolerance should work for all not a select few.
So, Sandy, what hate crime have you been charged with?
As I said, if you are an individual and you should be allowed to express your feelings about your beliefs, why don't you just come out and admit that you are for separation of church and state? Because separation of church and state is what allows you the freedom to do so.
I apologize for my delayed response to your comments. Let us continue on.
No, I haven’t been charged with a hate crime. The direction our country is headed toward, whereby it becomes less acceptable for individuals to disagree with the far left extremists who push their agenda upon others, I believe I am not far from witnessing such occurrences. The writing is on the wall:
1. Unwarranted laws created through frivolous lawsuits.
2. The twisting of the Constitution to benefit certain agendas.
3. The miss use of the term civil rights.
4. The continuous removal of anything that speaks of or reflects our Christian heritage or our right to express our beliefs.
Our right to speak and blog comes from the clause “...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” section of the First Amendment. It does not comes from any so called separation of church and state, which is clearly not in the First Amendment (another twisting of the Constitution).
Post a Comment