Saturday, March 29, 2014
The short answer is it doesn't. The First Amendment however states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Notice how the First Amendment is about keeping the government out of the church, it is NOT about keeping the church out of the government. The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: 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. Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of a First Amendment, the following was said: August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body." Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt 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." In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination. ... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or *burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion. The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in the United States. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same. The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state". In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice see has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life. In conclusion, The only way the Founding fathers or the Constitution ever even suggested Separation of Church and State was in intentions of keeping the State out of the Church Not the other way around. http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/
Thursday, September 13, 2012
A movie is not causing the violence in the Middle East the violent perpetrators are! I am not supporting that movie, I am only saying reacting in violence was a choice they made. http://www.caintv.com/StopblamingTheMovieandstopassa-411
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
With all of this controversy in the media over Dan Cathy's remarks, I can't help but ask where is the Liberal outrage against Islamic Shari'ah law? According to Islamic Shari'ah law homosexuality is not only punishable by death but it should be the most painful death they can find. Anybody that knows anything about the Oil markets knows that Islamic controlled OPEC has a lot of power there. I do not see a large scale boycott of oil, why is that? I believe it is because this is not truly about what Dan Cathy believes but is the left attacking Christianity and the rights of Christians to hold to and share their beliefs. As we all know Islam is not likely to have a great effect on American politics yet whereas Christianity can unless it has it's legs pulled out from under it. I believe people like Rahm Emanuel are trying to use this as a political maneuver to limit the influence of Christian morals on the election. Well that is just my opinion, if you don't like it sue me, just don't steal my Chick-fil-A sandwich cause I am hungry.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
I will not stand idly by while this once great nation is overrun with political correctness and liberal "tolerances"! I say STAND UP AND BE COUNTED! According to the Dept of Homeland Security I am a terrorist because I oppose abortion and Illegal immigration. According to the Liberal Mayors of several cities ie:Boston, I have no right to my Christian morals and if I stand by them and have a business they will shut me out . According to President Obama I must comply with his idea of proper healthcare . I say we MUST band together and fight for the America we love and we want back! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!