Blacksheep

This nation was created to escape the tyranny of enforced religion and when our Constitution was drawn up, Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State were clearly declared as law.

So when those with strongly held religious beliefs push their religious views in the political conversations that ensue on this site, they are contravening the very Constitution they should be defending, and worse, are making fools of themselves.

That this nation was founded on Biblical values is undeniable, but then so are the Islamic nations. The Koran was all written by the year 632 and it was all based on the Old Testament of the Bible, except that the writings of Mohammed replaced those of Jesus for the New Testament part.

In Islamic nations, the horrible punishments for religious offenses as prescribed in the Old Testament are still carried out, and the people live under an absolute religious tyranny. If we allow religious views to replace our values as put into law in our Constitution, we'll end up just like the Muslims.

Using the positive Biblical values expressed in our Constitution in no way validates any demand to adhere to Christian or any other religion's tenets in our laws.

GEM lucas Loc: TRIADELPHIA ,WV

''B****sheep'' you are right on the mark I'm glad you put this one out people need to know , what they believe ,Isn't. always what others believe. and the constitution needs to stay the same. ''Gem''

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Well now. Your very first post and I am going to have to disagree with you. Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution anywhere and never was. It was also not a law. The law you are talking about is a religion that is established by the national government. That means that the Constitution forbids the national government from mandating a given religion over any others. That did not however stop the states from establishing a religion and several did for awhile. An established religion was one in which you MUST pay tithes to the church even if you did not belong to it, or in some cases were made to go to an established church ONLY. You were not allowed to go to any other church.

"Before we look at supreme Court opinions banning the free exercise of religion & abridging free speech, we must consider: Whose powers are restricted by The First Amendment? It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers! The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want – this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People! Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax. Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seventh). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.

11. So! The First Amendment (1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion, (2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech. Everyone understood that no one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of conscience."

"So! The First Amendment (1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion, (2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech. Everyone understood that no one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of conscience. The People of Virginia said, when they ratified the U.S. Constitution:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridgedrestrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States…"

"But in Gitlow v. People (1925), judges on the supreme Court asserted – without any justification in Law or Fact – that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) 4 incorporates the First Amendment so that the First Amendment now restricts the powers of the States! They said:

…we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek 5 .…that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question. (p. 666) [emphasis added]

The judges’ new interpretationof the 14th Amendment became the weapon the Court has used to silence Christians and to seize Power over States & local governments. By claiming that the First Amendment restricts the powers of the States & local governments, the Court set itself up as policeman over the States, over counties, over cities & towns, and even over football fields & court-house lawns! In this way, the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be the States’ and The Peoples’ protection against usurpations of power by the federal government, became the weapon the supreme Court used to usurp power and force their wills on all People in Our Land."

" Now let us see how judges on the supreme Court re-defined “establishment of religion” in order to ban prayer in public schools. Engel v. Vitale (1962), is the case where six men outlawed non-denominational prayer in the public schools. A public school board in New York had directed that the following prayer be said at school:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

Any student was free to remain seated or leave the room, without any comments by the teacher one way or the other.

But six men on the supreme Court said this short, non-denominational and voluntary prayer constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment! They (Hugo Black 6 Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, and Douglas) admitted that allowing school children to say this prayer did not really “establish” a “religion”! They admitted that the prayer:

…does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others — that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago…(p.436)

Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion:

I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words. A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. (p.442)

But these six men didn’t want children praying in school. So, they just redefined “establishment of religion” to mean, “a religious activity”, “a prayer” (p.424), having public school children hear or recite a prayer that “somebody in government composed” (pp.425-427), “writing or sanctioning official prayers”(p.435), and “government endorsement of a prayer” (p.436).

These six men also admitted that even though no coercion was present, and even though the prayer was “denominationally neutral”, it still constituted an unlawful “establishment of religion”:

The Establishment Clause … does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. (p.430)

Douglas said in his concurring opinion:

There is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the … prayer (p.438); there is … no effort at indoctrination, and no attempt at exposition … New York’s prayer … does not involve any element of proselytizing … (p.439).

15. They thus redefined “established religion” to describe what the N.Y. public schools were doing so that they could then outlaw it. They don’t have that right! We have quoted Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison as showing that the essence of an “established religion” is that the civil government selects a particular religious denomination (Roman Catholic or Church of England or Congregational or Presbyterian, etc., and forces everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes. 7

16. Well! Since the evil from which the supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale pretended it sought to protect our public school children was having them recite or hear (if they wanted to) a one-sentence non-denominational prayer which “somebody in government composed”; that monstrous evil can be avoided if the children write their own prayers, right?

17. Oh no!, said six judges on the supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000). Here, a public school district permitted, but did not require, student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer at home football games. But Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, & Kennedy said this constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment, because the prayers were “public speech” authorized by “government policy” taking place on “government property” at government sponsored school events, and the policy involved “perceived” and “actual” “government endorsement of prayer.”

The six also said on page 309-310 of their opinion:

…School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 …

Do you see? They cite themselves – their earlier opinion in Lynch – as authority! 8Furthermore, making “nonadherents” feel like “outsiders” is not a constitutional standard; it is the judges’ own silly standard.

The six said on page 310:

…We explained in Lee that the “preservation and t***smission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.” 505 U.S. at 589…

Again, they cite themselves - their opinion in Lee – as authority! Furthermore, the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise ANYWHERE!"

Now, if you care to, you can read the entire article here; http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/

So your saying that the Constitution was written with this in mine is wrong. It was not and was written to stop Congress from enacting any such established religions, but NOT the states. The states were still free to establish any religion they felt a need to establish. The reason they did not want the national government to establish a religion was simple. They did not want the church Congress picked to be the established religion when they had already picket one, but not everyone picked the same religion. Each state had it's own religion that THEY established.

You will notice I did not at any time call you any names. Aren't you happy now??? Just kidding.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you too and for the very same reason, so I won't go through it all again. You can read the above post and see where you are both wrong.

"I'm glad you put this one out people need to know." Your right, people do need to know, but they need to know the t***h, not what someone THINKS is the t***h. Neither one of you back anything you said up with proof of anything other then what YOU say. I h**e to tell you this, but what YOU think is not always in our Constitution the way YOU think it is. I would take a wild guess and say that both of you need to read the Constitution and study it a little more before you state something as fact.

Sorry, but you are both wrong...................

Blacksheep

Posted in error.

Blacksheep

[quote=MrEd]Well now. Your very first post and I am going to have to disagree with you. Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution anywhere and never was. It was also not a law. The law you are talking about is a religion that is established by the national government. That means that the Constitution forbids the national government from mandating a given religion over any others. That did not however stop the states from establishing a religion and several did for awhile. An established religion was one in which you MUST pay tithes to the church even if you did not belong to it, or in some cases were made to go to an established church ONLY. You were not allowed to go to any other church.

That's a massive Cut and Paste you have there. Sure saves a lot of typing. So. How big a folder of these do you have on your pc?

Blacksheep

[quote=B****sheep]


The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The enforcement of a separation of Church and State has been through the Supreme Court, but only because they agreed that it is implied in the 1st Amendment, which IS VERY MUCH A PART of our Constitution.

Am I still wrong? Hmm? What was your point?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Sure I did a cut a past. Wouldn't you?? I can sit here typing for an hour, or cut and past in 5 minuets or less. Which would you do. Does that make my post wrong?? My point that I was making is that Congress is limited, NOT the states. If you had read it instead of just looking to see if it was a cut a past, you would have seen that. I gave my point of view and a link to back it up. Where is yours, or are you a self proclaimed authority on the subject?

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

[quote=B****sheep]

damn caught in a lie now you have to tap dance to distract

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

I don't know how this got here I was answering b****sheep

Blacksheep

That tap dancing remark... Are you from Tralfamadore?

Alicia Loc: NYC

***************

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

guess not.

GEM lucas Loc: TRIADELPHIA ,WV

''Mr Ed'' I can definitely see you did your homework, and I stand to be corrected.Thank You very much. ''Gem''

Blacksheep

Rant rant snort snarl rant rave stomp feet snort. I'm by god right how dare you challenge what I say I know everything that's why I have long rantraverants filed on my computer to attack anything I disagree with etcetera ad nauseum.

You clowns have nothing to do but sit around eagerly awaiting some statement that you can nitpick the crap out or at least present a challenge to, instead of entering into a creative discussion, and the plain proof of that is that you have these arguments all typed out and polished up in advance, and filed in neat order just waiting to be thrown at the unsuspecting poster.

Hell, I can almost hear you panting in eagerness.

Wow, there's a LOT of you hotheads on this site.