Ivory Dome

A few posts back I was rightfully reminded that there is no such thing as a separation clause. There is an establishment clause. I quickly read back and to my embarrassment, it was true. I had repeated the lie of separation of church and state so relentlessly hammered down the throats of Americans by the MSM. I beat myself up about that for days afterward. Are they even getting to me, I thought? I, of course knew the proper wording and the true intent, but still I repeated the false words.  I had the need to purge this lie that had slipped from my mind and into the blogosphere.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (shortened for relevance)

The words and meaning is clear, even in the less sophisticated vernacular of today.

I started to think about what lib appointed, commie, atheist Judge, legislating from the bench first used the word "separation".  It was neither lib or judge but Thomas Jefferson. 

The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802  letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. But it didn’t take long to see that his meaning was intended to be a guarantee that people would be able to worship God in anyway they felt right. It was reaffirmation of the establishment clause. Jefferson said and believed this:

I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another’s creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives for it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. — (My opinion, he was thinking and speaking of Christians only)

He also said;  Thus, for example, it is a religious duty to obey the laws of our country; the teacher of religion, therefore, must instruct us in those laws, that we may know how to obey them.

Well we certainly know that don’t happen any more. In fact, and correct me if wrong but political statements of any type can cause a church to lose it’s tax free status. Unless of course it’s from the Reverend Jackson or Sharpton.

Another early user of the term was James Madison. He said; "Strongly guarded is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." (again IMO speaking of Christianity)

So when did Separation become a road block to religion instead of a guarantee of freedom to worship?

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds v. the US, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. 

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James 1 of England in English law on which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States.

In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated, that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if we allowed polygamy, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The version of Jefferson’s Danbury letter which the Court used was in fact a mistaken transcription. While the Court quoted Jefferson as writing, "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions", Jefferson’s original handwriting reads "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." .

Polygamy right or wrong? A religious obligation, or an act against law? My opinion is that if all agree and there is no harm, that  prohibiting, the free exercise thereof, is exactly what happened to Reynolds. Being married to multiple willing participates hardly equates to human sacrifice. Yeah, lines should be drawn. Few would disagree. The difference, should be is the act harmful or not harmful.

The Court in 1878 believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.

Today Prayer, Crosses, the Ten Commandments, Christmas, everything Christian is under attack if readily viewed by the public. All, are things that do no harm and are acts that violate, the "free exercise thereof clause".

It would seem that all of this has flowed from an incorrect reading of Jefferson’s letter, as these are not legislative acts by congress but illegitimate acts legislated by the judicial branch of government.

A mistake that modern secular, lib appointed, commie, atheist judges, seized upon and perpetuated. Illegitimate law that would never never have passed in congress.

Perhaps now, I won’t again repeat the lie of separation of Church and State again. 

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.