Separation of Church and
State - the Truth
Starting
in America and then spreading throughout the world is the slogan
"Separation of Church and State" and it is now the guiding principle
behind the new Europian Constitution, that may destroy Europe forever. What is the truth behind this slogan that
started in 1947 in America and now is trying to virus the entire world?
What
does America's First Amendment's "Establishment Clause," which says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
really mean and what does it not mean?
The
truth is, the notion of "the constitutional separation of church and
state" that has transformed America into a de facto atheistic, secular
state, is a lie.
It
is one of the truly outrageous, malignant – and provably false – the "Biggest
Lie" of our generation.
In
reality, throughout the late 1700s – the era of the Revolutionary War and the
subsequent adoption of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the
First Amendment – Christianity permeated America from top to bottom. In 1777,
with the Revolutionary War threatening the flow of Bibles from England,
Congress approved the purchase of 20,000 Bibles from Holland to give to the
states.
No
fewer than six of the 13 original states had official, state-supported churches – "establishments of
religion"! – Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire
and South Carolina – refused to ratify the new national Constitution unless it
included a prohibition of federal meddling with their existing state
"establishments of religion."
Still
other states required those seeking elected office to be Christians.
The
Continental Congress routinely designated days of "fasting and
prayer" and other religious observances, appointed government-funded
chaplains, and appropriated money to pay for Christian missionaries to convert
the Indians.
What
'wall of separation'?
First
a quick civics lesson. The section of the Constitution that deals with religion
is Amendment I of the Bill of Rights – the first 16 words of it, anyway.
There's
the "Establishment Clause" ("Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion") and the "Free Exercise
Clause" ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
The
"Establishment Clause" – that's the one today's courts almost always
focus on – simply prohibits the federal government from
"establishing" a national church, or from interfering with the
established churches in the states! (Remember, several states already had
state-supported "establishments of religion.")
Let's
go back in time and witness the conversation among those who debated and
approved the wording of the Bill of Rights, and find out what they really
meant.
The
date is June 8, 1789. James Madison – key architect of the Constitution and a
leading member of the First Congress – is proposing the following wording for
what ultimately will become the religion clauses of the First Amendment:
"The
civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or
worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and
equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext,
infringed."
The
representatives debate this for a bit, and then turn it over to a committee
consisting of Madison and 10 other House members, which comes up with a new
version:
"No
religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience
be infringed."
More
debate. Madison explains that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to
be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary
to their conscience."
Rep.
Benjamin Huntington complains the proposed wording might "be taken in such
latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion." So
Madison suggests inserting the word "national" before the word
"religion," to assuage the fears of those concerned over the
establishment of a national religion – and of being compelled to conform to it.
(After all, wasn't that precisely the reason their forefathers the Puritans had
come to America in the first place – to escape the tyranny of England's
compulsory state religion?)
But
Rep. Gerry balks at the word "national," because, he argues, the
Constitution created a federal government, not a national one. So Madison
withdraws his latest proposal, but assures Congress his reference to a
"national religion" had to do with a national religious
establishment, not a national government.
A
week later, the House again alters the wording this way:
"Congress
shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise
thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
Meanwhile,
the Senate debates other versions of the same amendment and on Sept. 3, 1789,
comes up with this wording:
"Congress
shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
The
House doesn't like the Senate's changes and calls for a conference, from which
emerges – finally – the wording ultimately included in the Bill of Rights:
"Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
Joseph
Story,
appointed by President James Madison to the Supreme Court in 1811, where he
served for the next 33 years until his death, explained exactly how the high
court regarded the First Amendment in his celebrated "Commentary on the
Constitution of the United States":
"Probably
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now
under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal
sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from
the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience
and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to
make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have
created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
"The
real object of the [First Amendment] was, not to countenance, much less to
advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent
any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy
the exclusive patronage of the national government.
Rep.
Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking the president, George Washington,
to issue a national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.
Boudinot
said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without
offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining
with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many
blessings he had poured down upon them."
On
Sept. 25, 1789, Boudinot's resolution was passed, and within two weeks Washington
responded with the following Presidential Proclamation:
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday,
the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to
the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of
all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in
rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and
protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation;
for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His
providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree
of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the
peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the
national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with
which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful
knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has
been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly
offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations,
and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us
all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative
duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to
all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional
laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all
sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to
bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge
and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among
them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of
temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
The
Real Wall of Separation
Ironically,
Jefferson intended for his letter to the Danbury Baptists to reassure them that
the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their
religion. This is widely known. But what is not well known is that Jefferson
did not actually coin the phrase "separation of church and
state."
Rather,
he borrowed the metaphor from the sermon, "The Garden and the
Wilderness," which was very familiar to Baptists of the time. As Jim
Henderson, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice explains
it:
That
sermon, rendered by Roger Williams (the founder of the Rhode Island
Plantation colony) and a Baptist, depicted the church as a garden, the world as
a wilderness, and the wall as a device of the Creator's invention that
protected the garden from being overrun by the wilderness. Williams explained
that, from time to time, for the purpose of disciplining sin in the church,
"it hath pleased" the Almighty to break down the wall.
Thomas
Jefferson, ever the politician, knew when he communicated with the Baptists
that "The Garden and The Wilderness" was well known and widely read
nearly two generations later. He appealed to them in the terms of their own
great man's idiom.
There
you have it. The "wall of separation" was meant to protect "the
garden" of the church from being overrun by "the wilderness" of
government. No
wonder Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, "The metaphor of a 'wall of
separation' is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of
court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."
Even
James Madison, father of the Constitution, seemed to have something to
say about this case:
"We
have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of
government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the
capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to
sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
The
Courts Power
The
Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over
the other branches of government."
Supreme
Court justices can also be impeached, just like presidents.
Presidents
aren't compelled to obey unlawful Supreme Court decisions?
Some
presidents, including Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, have defied Supreme
Court orders.
Now Armed with knowledge, Do
something about it.