HIJACKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

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:

http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-mythical-wall-separation-how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law

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:

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/10/03/Antonin-Scalia-Constitution-permits-favoring-of-religion-over-non-religion/5451412358244/

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:

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-26

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: 

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

And also here:

https://christianheritagefellowship.com/when-the-united-states-capitol-was-a-church/

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:

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/08/aclu-chaning-meaning-of-first-amendment.html

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:

https://www.str.org/articles/church-and-state-the-separation-illusion#.Wb7BtDVry1s

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: 

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622

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:

https://christianheritagefellowship.com/when-the-united-states-capitol-was-a-church/

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):

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2195