[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Covering Biden -- or Just Covering for Him?

The Media Didn’t ‘Get It Wrong’ On Lafayette Park, They Lied To America — And They’re Still Lying

How This All Ends

Omar Is Forced To Clarify After Democrats Say She Equated U.S., Israel With Terrorists

Facebook and More Media Trump Lies

LIBERTY'S FLAME - T-SHIRT

Republican victories in South Texas prove once again that demographics aren't everything

Congress Must Keep Liberty’s Flame Alive

Progressives get vicious with Joe Manchin because he has principles

The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

Because They Got Away with Russiagate

How China turned a prize-winning iPhone hack against the Uyghurs

Obama Predicts Major Discovery Could Spark 'New Religions'

Facebook suspends Trump's accounts for 2 years, citing public safety risk

Conservatives more susceptible to believing falsehoods

Joe Biden has his MAGA: Make America Goofy Again

They Lied, People Died: Media and Dems' Deadly Wuhan Narrative

Dreams of a new #NeverTrump political party? Good luck with that.

DeSantis signs transgender sports ban on first day of LGBTQ Pride Month

An Evangelical Battle of the Generations: To Embrace Trump or Not?

Paul Ryan’s Impotent Appeal

Trump's back. Here's what his re-entry means for 2024.

Texas Gov. Abbott to veto funding for state legislature amid spat over election bill

Fox’s Lone-Wolf Liberal Had a Tough Job. But It Made for Better TV.

3 Ways We Can Pray for Our Nation

Stop China From Getting a Civilization-Killing Pathogen | Opinion

House Republicans Introduce ‘Stars and Stripes’ Bill to Ban Flying ‘Political,’ BLM Flags at U.S. Embassies

Vice President Kamala Harris under fire for 'disrespectful' tweet

3 Ways We Can Pray for Our Nation

As pandemic wanes, Florida’s DeSantis seizes national stage

Memorial Day Prayer Honoring Those Who Have Sacrificed Their Lives

2021 National Memorial Day Concert

Dems who ignore rising crime will pay a severe ballot-box price

BOMBSHELL! Fauci in 2012 wrote that “gain of function” research to juice up bat viruses was worth risking a pandemic: “the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in n

Enough of FauciÂ’s lies!: Devine

Biden shut down Wuhan inquiry out of spite — and is now forced to reverse course

BREAKING: USPS Worker Admits To Dumping Election Ballots In New Jersey Dumpsters

Judge Orders Gov. Newson to Pay $1.35 Million for Discriminatory Church Lockdowns

Surging crime rate spells trouble for Democrats in 2022 elections

Why May 8 Was a Very Bad Day for Virginia Democrats

Digital Audit of ALL Absentee Ballots in Corrupt Fulton County Ordered by Judge . . .

BREAKING: ‘Significant Discrepancies’ Discovered In Arizona Audit, Ballots Off Up to 17.5%, ‘Likely Joe Biden Did Not Win’

Americans are tired of the left's lie that U.S. is systemically racist

Here’s the truth: Hamas is a terrorist group on a mission of genocide

Biden must let Bibi fight his way: Goodwin

Biden Is Off to a Disastrous Start

I do believe ThaT iT is wiThin The realm of possibiliTy ThaT Biden could win a presidenTial elecTion ... iT would Take place during a severe weaTher evenT --- hеll freezing over.

New Data Finds Majority Of Trump’s 2020 Voters Were Women and Minorities

Why Republicans believe they're right to oust Liz Cheney

150,000+ Sign French LeTTer ... Warning Of Civil War --- Demanding Major AnTi-IslamisT Changes To SocieTy.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: When did the U.S. government pass a law dictating the Separation of Church and State? Where can this law be found?
Source: Christian Answers
URL Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html
Published: Oct 23, 2011
Author: n/a
Post Date: 2011-10-23 21:18:11 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 10632
Comments: 24

When did the U.S. government pass a law dictating the Separation of Church and State? Where can this law be found?

As the concept is commonly understood today, the government has never passed a law implementing the "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Over the years, however, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have reinterpreted this amendment in many ways. This reinterpretation of the Constitution has in effect become the “law” supposedly dictating the "separation of church and state."

Let's look first at a very brief history of the Courts reasoning and rationale for reinterpretation, and then we'll discuss what the phrase "separation of church and state" means as it is applied in American public policy.

One of the Supreme Court's most blatant violations of the Constitution came about through their reinterpretation of the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments. Prior to this constitutional violation, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Notice the actual language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law…"

As one of many efforts to limit the power of the federal government, the Constitution left authority over religious matters to the States. The Supreme Court consistently adhered to this constitutional principle until well into the twentieth century.

But in the 1925 ruling, Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court began ignoring its predecessors and precedents. The Court reasoned that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. (This would obviously expand the powers of the federal courts to a great degree.) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support their contention, nor do the earlier Courts.

Nonetheless, the 1925 Court ignored the historical record and the opinions of their predecessors, establishing a new precedent. Gitlow dealt with freedom of speech and the press; religious matters would soon follow.

In the context of religion, the Court's first and most abusive reinterpretation began in a 1940 Supreme Court ruling, Cantwell v. Connecticut. Here, the Court applied the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment to the states. Again, religion was a State matter. State courts were, and are, completely capable of handling the issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in direct opposition to the original intentions of the Constitution, applied yet another portion of the Bill of Rights to the States. They did not stop there.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the “law” of "separation of church and state."

That was a very brief description of how the federal courts have taken authority over religious issues, reinterpreting the First Amendment and applying it to the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of this was done in clear violation of the actual wording of the Constitution, as well as the intentions of its framers. The modern concept of "separation of church and state" can not be justified using the historical record.

During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.

"Separation of church and state," as applied to education, means that a prayer at a graduation ceremony is unconstitutional. It also means that students may not pause for a moment of silence at the beginning of their school day. It means that a nativity scene may not be displayed on public property unless there are other displays (e.g. Santa Clause or Christmas trees) that secularize the presentation.

Today's conception of "separation of church and state" has also been used to remove historic crosses from public property, and religious symbols from city seals. It has been used to remove the Ten Commandments from courtrooms, even though they are carved in stone within the architecture of the Supreme Court building. The concept has been used to prevent religious expressions on personalized license plates. And these are but a few of the official applications of the concept, or “law” of "separation of church and state."

One should understand that "separation of church and state" is not actually a law. It is a doctrine, or a legal concept, that has been implemented by the various courts primarily over the last fifty years. If this concept, as originally understood, would have been applied with consistency over the years, America would certainly be a different country right now. Religious expression would flourish, and the courts would not be micromanaging the religious life of the American people.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and religious expression were to be encouraged.

This is why, for example, the first Congress asked President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Proclamation upon completion of the Bill of Rights. Today, that practice would be viewed as unconstitutional. It would violate the "separation of church and state."


Poster Comment:

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION (George Washington, 1789)

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice 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 fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789 (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

#3. To: Murron, mcgowanjm (#0)

When did the U.S. government pass a law dictating the Separation of Church and State? Where can this law be found?

As the concept is commonly understood today, the government has never passed a law implementing the "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The separation of church and state as we know it today was not established by the Constitution or any Federal law.

The term comes from an 1802 letter of Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

The actual extent of what Jefferson spoke to (the First Amendment) was that the Federal "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In that, the Federal government is restrained from passing any applicable Federal law to impose its will upon the States or the people. It is a power explicitly withheld from the grant of powers given to the Federal government. It does not speak to restraining the States or the people.

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete.

Originally, the Bill of Rights was a set of restraints upon the Federal government and did not apply to the States. The 14th Amendment deliberately did apply the rights of citizens of the United States (as opposed to the rights as a citizen of a particular State) as a restraint against the States. This would include the individual citizen rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment was a post-war amendment designed to attack the concept of States Rights or State Sovereignty.

The Supreme Court has not incorporated all of the Bill of Rights but has incorporated select provisions.

U.S. Supreme Court

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

No. 52

Argued November 20, 1946

Decided February 10, 1947

330 U.S. 1

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY

Syllabus

Pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit, a board of education by resolution authorized the reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The Catholic schools operated under the superintendency of a Catholic priest and, in addition to secular education, gave religious instruction in the Catholic Faith. A district taxpayer challenged the validity under the Federal Constitution of the statute and resolution so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents for the transportation of children attending sectarian schools. No question was raised as to whether the exclusion of private schools operated for profit denied equal protection of the laws; nor did the record show that there were any children in the district who attended, or would have attended but for the cost of transportation, any but public or Catholic schools.

Held:

1. The expenditure of tax raised funds thus authorized was for a public purpose, and did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 330 U. S. 5-8.

2. The statute and resolution did not violate the provision of the First Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibiting any "law respecting an establishment of religion." Pp. 330 U. S. 8-18.

133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333, affirmed.

nolu chan  posted on  2011-10-24   1:09:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan, ferret Mike (#3)

Ferret you can learn from chans post.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-10-24   7:19:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike, nolu chan (#5) (Edited)

Ferret you can learn from chans post.

If the founders had wanted a non separation of church and state all they had to do was choose to remain colonies of England. Instead they chose a separate, opposing path.

mininggold  posted on  2011-10-24   12:01:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: mininggold (#12)

Their argument is one big circle jerk...of course the first amendment establishes an effective wall of separation between church and state as well as a wall of separation between government and the ability to speak freely, hold political opinions and associations and to write about any topic unencumbered by ANY law be it legislated or INDIRECTLY AFFECTED by legislation.

Under their interpretation, Congress could establish within the Executive a "Department of Ecumenics" to oversee ALL religious activity and to detemine whether an activity or a Church is TRULY religious in nature.

So, one day, this department considers Catholicism and since it has a semi- deific figure at its head who, at times, Speaks As God [see: ex cathedra], that it fails the test established, not by Congress through legisation but by the adminstrative law determined and established by the Department of Ecumenics, as being a religious organization [or corporation as the Framers would have called it] because ALL religion must have ONLY the word of GOD as it's guide and not the dicta of a man.

Someone mentioned the phrase Slippery Slope to me yesterday...religion and government is the slipperiest.

war  posted on  2011-10-24   12:49:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: war (#14)

Someone mentioned the phrase Slippery Slope to me yesterday...religion and government is the slipperiest.

What these dimwits who want a combined church/state never, ever realize is that their religion isn't the only one this would apply to. With the growth of Islam, there could someday be an Islamic church/state. Or we could end up with a holy war between all of the different Christian sects.

The founders were brilliant in preventing this type of religious takeover from happening and protecting us from the actions of the knuckle-dragging delta-minuses.

Skip Intro  posted on  2011-10-24   12:58:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 15.

#21. To: Skip Intro (#15)

What these dimwits who want a combined church/state never, ever realize is that their religion isn't the only one this would apply to.

Why would they? They are all convinced that THEIR cult is the only true cult,and holds all the answers.

sneakypete  posted on  2011-10-25 05:53:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com