Home

Item #2)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate_3

Republican Senate candidate for Delaware, Christine O’Donnell has apparently caused
a stir by simply stating an obvious fact. In a debate with her opponent, she pointed out
that “ Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. The audience reportedly
gasped when she mentioned not believing it was a part of the First Amendment.

I am currently gasping at the ignorance of this audience and of everyone who has been
brainwashed into believing that Separation of Church and State is a part of the US
Constitution.

News flash: It’ s not.

The Secular Humanist (and blatantly anti-Christian) modern Doctrine of “ Separation of
Church and State” was born in the Supreme Court in the 1960’ s. In order to put some
lipstick on that pig, they borrowed a phrase from a  letter that Thomas Jefferson
wrote and stapled it on a crazy and wildly unprecedented viewpoint.

Jefferson’ s letter has nothing to do with what we now call “ Separation of Church and
State” . Rather, it speaks to the original (and correct) meaning of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads:

“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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In regards to religion, very simply, Congress is not allowed to make any law that
sets up a State Religion. Also, Congress is not allowed to make any law that restricts the
free exercise of religion.

To be fair, there is great discussion as to what actually constitutes an “ establishment of religion” , but for my money, it would take a whole lot for our government to violate that clause. To me, nothing really violates the First Amendment short of Congress passing a law saying that everyone is now a member of The Church of Christ…or making it compulsory to bring Fido to the Episcopalian Blessing of the Animals every year. That would be “ an establishment of religion” .

Unfortunately, the smallish group of folks who hate Christianity with a passion
have twisted the First Amendment to try and use it to push their own agenda. It’ s almost
to the point that if a City Councilman said, “ God Bless You” after someone sneezed at a
meeting, someone would say the Councilman had violated the First Amendment. So, in our day and age, Common Courtesy is an establishment of religion.

The most frustrating thing is that this modern interpretation turns the actual
intention of the First Amendment on it’ s head. The First Amendment was meant to
protect religion in America.

The letter from which “ Separation of Church and State” was lifted actually
demonstrates this. A group of Baptists had written Thomas Jefferson, concerned that
members from another Christian denomination who were voted into positions of power
within the state would use that power against the Danbury Baptists. They said that in
Connecticut, religious freedom was seen as a “ favor” granted from the legislature…instead of a natural right of man.

Jefferson’ s short reply was carefully crafted to be an expression of his thoughts on
the matter and intended his brief words to  spread beyond the Danbury Baptists.

That being the case, Jefferson really did not directly answer the concerns of the Danbury folks. Had I been a Danbury Baptist, after receiving Jefferson’ s reply, I would have said, “ Gee, um, thanks Mr. President… but what about our questions?” .

In any case what Jefferson did say was simply that, on a national level, the
Constitution provided protection for churches against the government. This “ wall of
separation” insulated religion from interference by government.

Sometime in the intervening years, a misinterpretation sprung up that equates
religious expression directly with the establishment of religion.

To that, I say, For Heaven’ s Sake, people…use your heads!

The obvious meaning and intention of the First Amendment was to prevent the
Federal Government from setting up an official State Religion. The second purpose was
to prevent the Federal Government from making laws interfering with the practice of any
particular denomination.

A little Common Sense goes a long way.

When someone says, “ What about the Separation of Church and State? Huh? Huh?
Huh?” , I want to break out some Inigo Montoya…” You keep using that phrase…I do not
think it means, what you think it means.”

Clearly our education system has failed epically. When the Humanist Orthodoxy
of Separation of Church and State is challenged,  people don’ t realize it’ s not a part of
the Constitution.

Word to the gasping audience and the silly, silly media: Ms. O’ Donnell was right.
Love her or hate her, she correctly pointed out that Separation of Church and State (as we
know it) is not a part of the US Constitution.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s