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.
This is the First Amendment
in the Bill of Rights, quoted in its entirety.
But the purpose of this article is to deal only with the first sentence
of this Amendment – i.e., concerning the state establishing a religion and the free
exercise of religion.
The Law
This is the law of the
land. America has been blessed and
protected for over 200 years, in large part, due to the First Amendment.
But if you ask many Americans
today, they would say that the First Amendment is about keeping religion out of
politics, and that this is why there should be no prayer in public schools or
in the White House, and there should be no “nativity scenes,” crosses, or
Scripture verses in any public place, etc., etc. They believe that religion should not influence the state in any way, and
that it has no place in government policy.
Isn’t that what the First Amendment is all about? Absolutely not.
Brainwashed
First of all, it is extremely important to know what the
actual INTENT of the forefathers was when they drafted the Declaration of
Independence. Our society today has been
largely brainwashed into believing that religion is to be limited by law, but the
purpose of the First Amendment was always to protect religious expression, not restrict it. It was created
to promote the freedom of religion, not to shut it down.
Our country’s drafters of the
Declaration saw both church and state as being answerable to God, and under the
control of God. Not like today, where
the state is often anti-God. The intrusion of the state upon believers is
the very reason that drove our forefathers to this country in the first place.
But today’s “scholars” have
completely reversed the intent of the First Amendment. Now, instead of protecting the church from
government intrusion, it is used to shield the government from church
influence. This is a total perversion of
what our forefathers had in mind.
“Separation of Church and State”
It is interesting that the
phrase, “separation of church and state,” tossed about so freely today, is not even found in the Bill of Rights,
nor in the Constitution. Nor even is the
modern day concept of it there. The two points in that first sentence in the
First Amendment are very simple and very clear:
1) The state cannot establish a “state religion,” and 2) The state
cannot stop the free exercise of religion.
Many in our government (especially on the left) are intruding upon the
rights of religious people. Americans
have been deceived into believing the idea that the state is not to mention
God. But a nation recognizing their need
for God is not the same as establishing a state religion. Again, the intention of the First Amendment
was to keep the state out of the business of the church, NOT to keep God out of
the state.
What Did Jefferson Mean?
In America, the concept that
the church should be isolated from the state was first used in 1947 in the
court case “Everson v. Board of
Education.” This particular court
referenced a quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1802, who was writing to a Baptist
church in Danbury, Connecticut. In this
letter, Jefferson did mention a “wall of separation between church and state.” But the intention of Jefferson’s letter was to
calm the fears of the Baptist church who believed that a national denomination might
be established. Jefferson was simply reassuring
the Baptist Association that there would be no government intrusion or
interference with their church. This
“wall” that he spoke of was there to protect,
not limit, the church. He was simply emphasizing the First Amendment
as a protection of religious freedom from government interference. Everson
v. Board of Education misinterpreted
this letter, causing a dangerous precedent to be formed for the American people.
Wrong Turn
Concerning this unacceptable precedent,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated:
“The ‘wall of separation
between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which
has proved useless as a guide to judging.
It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
See here:
In a speech at Colorado
Christian University, the late Chief Justice Antonin Scalia said of the idea of
separation of church and state:
“I think the main fight is to
dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be
true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot
favor religion over non-religion… That’s a possible way to run a political
system. The Europeans run it that way…
And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by
statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
(Emphasis added)
See here:
Did you catch that? This may come as a shock to some, but this
Supreme Court judge is saying that the Constitution can indeed favor religion
over non-religion. But this is not what the
secularist (non-religious) wants.
It is also reported that
Chief Justice Scalia has called the modern concept of separation of church and
state a “bulldozer removing religion from American public life.”
See here:
Actions Speak Louder than Words
In essence, from this
unfortunate incident (Everson v. Board of
Education), a modern law was created by perverting the intent of a private
letter. The Supreme court in 1947
misinterpreted the essence of Thomas Jefferson’s letter of 1802, twisting the
original meaning of the First Amendment.
Today’s view of separation of church and state is clearly not at all
what Thomas Jefferson embraced. How do
we know this? Because of his actions.
According to the links below, during his administration, the state (in a
sense) “became the church,” since he and
James Madison attended church services in the very House of Representatives. Not only did Jefferson permit church services
in executive branch buildings, but the gospel was also preached in the Supreme
Court chambers, as well.
More Proof in Action
We also know the intention of
the forefathers (toward the First Amendment) by the prayers they said in government
settings, by the multitude of monuments with biblical inscriptions, by their taking
oaths on the Bible in court, by court bailiffs proclaiming “God save this
honorable court,” by the references to God in the Declaration of Independence, by
the biblical foundation of our first colleges, by the Communion services held
in the State Treasury building and by their frequent references to, and overall
reliance on, God. The founding fathers
had no problem with these things.
Doesn’t sound like today’s version of separation of church
and state here, does it? Either the
founding fathers were hypocrites, or their version of the First Amendment is not the one of today. They saw nothing wrong with incorporating God
into their government activities.
Although these practices do not at all cause the “establishment” of a
state church, they would likely all be considered “violations” of the First
Amendment today! For more examples, see
this Library of Congress website:
And also here:
Oops – A Slip of the Tongue!
A very revealing comment was
made by Samuel Walker (professor of criminal justice at the University of
Nebraska and an active American Civil Liberties Union member) concerning the Everson v. Board of Education
decision. He said:
“In the 1947 Everson
decision, the Supreme Court gave NEW MEANING to the establishment clause of the
First Amendment.” (Emphasis added)
In other words, they are admitting to re-defining this law, since the Everson decision did not represent
the original meaning. Does Walker or the ACLU assume that the
founding fathers had some hidden meaning in their message only to have the true
meaning discovered by our “enlightened” society today? Not hardly.
See here:
More Evidence
Stand To Reason’s Greg Koukl said this about the First Amendment:
“Freedom of religion is the
goal, and non-establishment is the means.”
See here:
In this same article from
Koukl, he states:
“The Northwest Ordinance of 1787,
passed by the very same Congress
which enacted the First Amendment, stated the following in Article III:
‘Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.’” (Emphasis added)
Again, this is not today’s
warped view of the First Amendment. The
founders would not remove God from the public eye.
Their Achilles’ Heel
Furthermore, Koukl addresses
the separationists’ real weakness:
“Courts have removed prayer
from school, creches [nativity scenes] from the lawns of city halls, and
crosses from public parks.
Separationists have managed to get personal Bibles off of teachers’
desks, the Ten Commandments out of school rooms, and references to God eliminated
from students’ graduation speeches. This
is their Achilles’ heel: Things can only be removed that were already there to
begin with. How did they get there? They
were allowed by citizens, legislatures, and courts who saw no harm in them, no
intolerance, no danger, and no breech of any Constitutional principle for
almost 175 years.” (Emphasis added)
The following quotes, which
you will never hear from the left / separatists / liberal politicians of today,
will summarize the attitude and intent of the founding fathers:
“The facts show that the mass
of the Founders, with few exceptions, believed that the Christian worldview and
Christian principles must be the foundation of the Republic.”
And:
“Their idea of ‘freedom of
religion’ was first and foremost freedom to pursue the Christian religion unhindered by the federal government, and only
secondarily freedom to practice non-Christian religion.”
And also:
“…while the Founders
advocated toleration of non-Christian religions, they themselves recognized the
reality and priority of the Christian religion and would not have endorsed any
statute that would have relegated Christianity to a position of equal validity
with other ideologies.”
These 3 quotes can be found
in this excellent and revealing article by Dave Miller of Apologetics Press, found here:
This author sums it up
nicely:
“The example of President
Jefferson and all other Founding Fathers clearly demonstrate that they expected
that Christianity should exercise a moral influence upon the legislative
process of the federal government.”
See here:
Christian Nation?
Are we suggesting that
Christianity is, was, or should have been, the state religion in America? No, that’s not what we’re saying, but we are saying that it should be recognized
that Christianity has had a very positive influence on the United States of
America that we would have not otherwise had.
Are we a “Christian
nation”? If we are (or ever were), it is
because of the founding fathers embracing Christianity’s lofty principles which
have prevailed, and have ultimately blessed our nation. No other nation has been blessed like
America, and we dare say that it is BECAUSE OF Christianity, not in spite of it.
No, we do not advocate any religion becoming the “state
religion.” Thanks to the First
Amendment, everyone is free to practice whatever religion he wishes (unless it
would endanger someone, involve criminal activity, or infringe on someone
else’s actual rights). But
Christianity’s contribution to this country should be acknowledged and
appreciated, and its influence continued, as the forefathers intended.
After all, someone’s values, morals and principles
are going to show through in our laws.
You cannot completely divorce morals from law making. And it is often “religion,” directly or
indirectly, which determines morals.
Godly Influence
The church should not refrain
from addressing “political” issues, since politics and morals certainly
intersect on many levels. Righteous
government should always be encouraged (Psalm 33:12; Proverbs 14:34). And how can those of us who are Christians be
“salt” and “light” (Matthew 5:13-14) if we never speak up? In the Bible, Jesus Christ never considered a
person’s faith as a “private matter” (Matthew
28:18-20).
Should the church be silent on political issues (e.g., crime,
homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, race relations, the
welfare system, corrupt politicians, etc.) as though these important issues are
none of our business? Should these
issues be addressed from a purely secular viewpoint? That’s not the way the founders handled
political issues!
Conclusion
What is happening to our
beloved nation? For many today, simply
mentioning “God” in a public place can throw them into a frenzy, causing them
to scream and accuse you of “forcing your religion down their throats!” They can tolerate all manner of cursing, vulgarity
and lewdness, but they will not tolerate bringing “religion” into a government
building.
But the state should not, and
cannot, demand that religious activity be confined to just the home or church,
nor should they forbid (peaceful and tasteful) public displays of faith.
Furthermore, we believe that
peaceful public discussions and debates on the merits and shortcomings of each
religion should be encouraged.
There have been many
disagreements over what exactly the First Amendment teaches. As emphasized earlier, this could be settled
by simply going back to the intent of
the original drafters. Just as any
argument concerning an author’s work can be settled by demonstrating his original intent, so it is with the First
Amendment.
So, Christians, let’s do our
homework and our research. We must then speak
up with the truth and challenge those who have hijacked our First Amendment. If we don’t, it is fearsome to think what
might happen to our country.
With that thought in mind, one
of the architects of our American civilization, geographer, educator and Yale
graduate, Jedidiah Morse (father of inventor Samuel Morse), shared some sobering
thoughts concerning the difference between a Christian culture and a
non-Christian culture. His words are prophetic:
“To the kindly influence of
Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social
happiness which mankind now enjoys. In
proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation,
either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of
its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede
from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete
despotism. All the efforts to destroy
the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of
our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall
be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the
blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.” (Researched by Dave Miller of Apologetics Press, found here):
