Happy Fourth of July!!
I am glad to be guest hosting the site while The Chef is on vacation.
Freedom, our world is greatly different from when the Founding Fathers celebrated this day 240 years ago. Of course our world is different from just a week ago, month ago, a few years ago. Groups professing one this go another. Groups with agenda to "normalize" their lifestyle. Groups that are trying to destroy the foundations of marriage, family even God are on the upswing and many law abiding citizens are just keeping our heads in the sand just trying to make it from one day to the next.
I promised not to be on my usual soapbox for the next month but I do hope that you seekers of truth and fact will enjoy and engage in the conversation. As long as we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, let us strive to make our world better.
Conservative Connie
The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State
by Tim Greenwood
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today
people cry, "Separation of Church and State". 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 a church (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. Jefferson's letter from
which the phrase
"separation of church and state" was written to
affirm first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
| I contemplate with solemn 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. (1) |
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state"
was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of
which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the
state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground
with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the
Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
| When they have opened a gap in the hedge
or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness
of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick,
and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if
He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of
necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2) |
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect
the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet
the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
I know all about the separation of church and state.
For seven years one of my realitives, Rev. John Greenwood, the half brother of my great (x15) grandfather, was confined
in prison and finally on the sixth of April, 1593, was taken from jail in
England and hanged for his belief and teaching of - the separation of church
and state.
That little band of Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620, were
his followers -- they had worshipped at the church he founded -- that band
of Puritans that landed in America and founded Boston were believers in the
doctrine that John Greenwood was the first to publish and teach - the separation
of church and state.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth brought to America the teachings of John Greenwood
-- including the separation of church and state -- and if America owes its
greatness, its progress, and its achievements to one principle in government
more than another it is that in America every American can kneel at the altar
of his own faith, and worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
The state in America is separated from the church. American government tolerates
no single form of religious worship but shelters and protects alike all.
John Greenwood taught that there could be but one head of the church and
that head was not a King or Queen but Jesus Christ, and that there could be no
law for the government of the church other than what the Scriptures contained.
Both the phrase and concept of the separation of chuch and state
used by Thomas Jefferson and Roger Williams came directly from the teachings
of Rev. John Greenwood.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established
the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them,
they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes
and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.
They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that
were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and
mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the
Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment
and torture.
The people did not want freedom FROM
religion, but freedom OF religion.
The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be
to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding
fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand
it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation.
They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held
firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible
as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be
one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system
to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed
in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent
of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the
guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle
is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue;
despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the
United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into
a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain
what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form
of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue
desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality
was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials
were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold
a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v.
Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality.
If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral
base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy
the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the
family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government
in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing
the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys
our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary
for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue
our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their
own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy
or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers
believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that
people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the
protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why
virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting
their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs.
The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little
power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as
much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect
the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of
our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt
and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose,
more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this
and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no
man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government
as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends
towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not
mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err.
Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead
by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was
the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution
had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3)
We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to
know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors
did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items
with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from
these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source
they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations.
Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their
conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers
were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible
and incorporated them into our government.
If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would
never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.
An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our
government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge,
the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers
took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial,
legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers
strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary
to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has
the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power
to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks
and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President
of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not
exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true,
why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?
People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and
state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical
authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal
to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards
of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because
the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational
system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention
although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton
since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence
on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five
original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said...
| "God grant that in America true religion
and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy
the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4) |
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from
schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the
U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion
officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer
is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent
or be excused while the prayer is being recited.
For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention
itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer
in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes
said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent.
Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited
from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden
by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against
the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history
said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January,
1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built
in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever
was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued
over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there
is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system
of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although
this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question
was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty
God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings
upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's
protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually
transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased;
violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961
to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The
Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible
was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
Satan is not a creator. He cannot create anything. All he can do is
take that which God has created and 'twist' it upside-down and call it
something else. God created good - Satan twisted it into evil. God created
love - Satan twisted it into hate. God created faith - Satan twisted it
into fear. Do you see how he works?
Satan also twists the good things that man has created as well. To the
point - our founding fathers, many of which were ministers, created the
constitution and it's amendments including the First Amendment which provides
for legal protection of the Church from the State (i.e. government) - Satan
has now twisted that in the minds of the people to "protect" the State
and all governmental entities, property, programs, etc... from the Church
- banning the very freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees!
Now the IRS is already beginning to tell Pastors what they can and cannot
preach and teach in their own churches - threatening to revoke their 501(c)(3)
tax exempt status!
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be
one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?
Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability
we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They
promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion
in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature
has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was
not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the
potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct
conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons
of history.
In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court
stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would
generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism,
Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court
declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association
certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers.
Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why
is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer
of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion
of Humanism over Christianity.
This my friends is exactly what our founding
fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
Today in the United States, 90% of the population believes in God!
80% of those believe in the Judeo-Christian Ethic (i.e. believe in Jesus).
But Hollywood and the media has convienced most Christians that they are
-
the vast minority! When in fact Christians are the "Silent
Majority!" Alolph Hitler once said that if a well crafted lie is
told often enough and long enough it will become as good as the the truth!
For example, "the Religious Right" is a totally ficticious entity.
There SHOULD be one, but there is no such thing! Christians just
haven't seemed to be able get together long enough to realize the strength
they would have if they united politically. Now the "Religious Right"
is just a straw-man to hide a REAL and very active movement - "the Athiest
Left!"
"Separation of Church and State" is just a myth. But it's a myth
that if allowed to continue will continue to daily chip away our religious
freedoms. We just cannot keep quiet about it any longer. Christians
must be taught on this subject now - before it becomes illegal to do even
that! All evil needs to flourish is for good men - to do (and say)
nothing!
