ACLU and "separation of church & state"

[ScreamingEagle]

The usage of the words "separation of church and state" in legal jurisprudence came from a 1947 court case instigated by (surprise, surprise) the ACLU:

From recent WATimes article:

In 1947 the ACLU was responsible for Everson v. Board of Education coming before the high court. One of its lawyers, Leo Pheffer, wrote the draft of the opinion which resulted in the so-called "separation of church and state." (expressed by Justice Hugo Black)

This was the first time in history that the Supreme Court did not use precedent in its opinion. It ignored precedent. In at least two previous rulings America was declared to be a Christian nation, a Christian people. These cases were the Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. in 1892 and the U.S. v. Macintosh in 1931.

Although the ACLU was successful in turning the First Amendment upside down, that does not make it right. The Supreme Court's pro-slavery Dred Scott decision was reversed because it was unconstitutional. The same needs to be done with the Everson v. Board of Education ruling. That would be a good start in just saying no to the ACLU.

More cool info on this subject: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/booklets/separationbooklet.php )


Why does the ACLU want to "separate church and state"?
More from this excellent Times piece:

Dennis Prager's article, "A Jew Defends the Cross" published recently on FrontPageMagazine.com, eloquently states why he led a fight against the ACLU to keep the cross on the Los Angeles County seal.

First, he said he fears those who rewrite history.
Second, he said he fears intolerance. "I have found over and over that most Christians who preach faith are more tolerant than most leftists who preach tolerance."
Third,and most important, he states: "I fear the removal of the Judeo-Christian foundation of our society. This is the real battle of our time, indeed the civil war of our time."

"The left," Mr. Prager continues, "wants America to become secular like Western Europe, not remain the Judeo-Christian country that it has always been. But unlike the left, I do not admire France, Belgium and Sweden. And that is what the battle over the seal of America's most populous county (and the Boy Scout oath) is all about. It is not about separation of church and state. It is about separation of a county (and a country) from its history. And it is about separation of America from its moral foundation."

That is what Mr. Prager believes is at stake in the ACLU's attempt to eradicate God from our nation. The ACLU works consistently, and all too often successfully, to rewrite America's history. As Karl Marx said, "If I can steal their history I can steal their country."

The ACLU is attempting to steal our Judeo-Christian history so it can steal our country. Citizen pressure needs to be applied to force Congress to use every weapon at its disposal — including its Article III power to define jurisdiction of federal courts, a constitutional amendment, regulations to enforce existing laws, and the withholding of taxpayers' money from counties or states that try undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041213-084741-7322r.htm

 

[menewa]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

We're all well aware of what the First Amendment says. The question is: What does a tiny cross on a city seal have to do the church controlling the state?

The intention of the First Amendment was to protect the church from government as much as anything, not to totally wipe away any sign of any kind of religion from public view.

 

[Gem]

menewa,

so you would defend a decision to redo the LA County seal because of the cross depicted on it?

 

[Comrade]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

Let's quote it then:

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.

Now according to the constitution Congress is a seperate body than either the Federal or the State judiciary.

Therefore should a state judge choose to present himself in the attire of the ten commandments (like one Alabama fellow chose to do), Congress has no business prohibiting the free exercise thereof, although in this case he certainly may face a voter referundum and/or national scrutiny. And the impending sense of doom felt from such defendents as the likes of Scott Peterson in his murder trial might be worth such a display.

What other 'proof' do you have that the seperation of Church and State are mandated in American society?

Would that you were Scrooge, you'd ban Christmas as a Federal holiday, would you not?

 

[KarlMarx]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

I think you have that backwards. The founding fathers did not want a state run church as was the case in England where the king was the head of the Church of England and membership in that church was not only mandatory but supported by taxes. England was not a theocracy as is the case of mullah run Iran.

That is why the Pilgrims, Puritans and so forth came here, to get away from the religious persecution of England.

And by the way, Jefferson was the writer of the Declaration of Independence.
The ones that were instrumental in drafting the Constitution were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. See the Federalist Papers for a better understanding of what they had in mind when the Constitution was being drafted.


Here is the text of the First Amendment that you are referring to....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So... Congress shall not make a law establishing a State Church or prohibit people from exercising their chosen religion....

I hear some of you saying "wait.... what was that second part there Karl? Did you say 'prohibit people from exercising their chosen religion'?"

Yes, you heard correctly, everyone is so hung up on the "separation of church and state" myth that they totally ignore the fact that the First Amendment clause concerning religion actually has two parts.

Now I hear some of you saying.... "well, couldn't it be argued that all this stuff about prohibiting of crosses on city seals and so on a violation of that second part of the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment?"

Very good point... yes I believe it can be argued very convincingly.

 

[KarlMarx]

Let's quote it then:



Now according to the constitution Congress is a seperate body than either the Federal or the State judiciary.

Therefore should a state judge choose to present himself in the attire of the ten commandments (like one Alabama fellow chose to do), Congress has no business prohibiting the free exercise thereof, although in this case he certainly may face a voter referundum and/or national scrutiny. And the impending sense of doom felt from such defendents as the likes of Scott Peterson in his murder trial might be worth such a display.

What other 'proof' do you have that the seperation of Church and State are mandated in American society?

Would that you were Scrooge, you'd ban Christmas as a Federal holiday, would you not?

I might also add that Congress establishes the lower courts and can specifically prohibit cases pertaining to any particular subject from being heard.

So what does that have to do with the argument here? Well, if Congress is to observe the text of the First Amendment, a lower court that is allowed to hear a case involving the suppression of the free exercise of religion is in effect "Congress prohibiting the free exercise thereof".... isn't it?

 

[Comrade]

I might also add that Congress establishes the lower courts and can specifically prohibit cases pertaining to any particular subject from being heard.

So what does that have to do with the argument here? Well, if Congress is to observe the text of the First Amendment, a lower court that is allowed to hear a case involving the suppression of the free exercise of religion is in effect "Congress prohibiting the free exercise thereof".... isn't it?

Indeed it is, and you understand far more of constitutional law than menewa.

Now if the First Amendment is modified through this same law, all bets are off...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

We already have separation of church and state. Don't try to distract us from the REAL issue here with petty legal arguments.

What the ACLU is trying to do is separate our country from its history and moral foundation and ultimately destroy America by allowing communism or some form of it to take over. There is no other explanation why the private organization of the ACLU has continuously attacked Christianity and yet has done its best to protect Communism in a concerted effort over so many, many years.

 

[OCA]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

You can go back to what the founding fathers said all you want but clearly and beyond argument this policy of seperation and secularism has clearly failed socially. What is the harm in experimenting with something else? What are libs afraid of?

 

[manu1959]

to understand church and state all you have to do is look to europe at the time the founding fathers left europe and in the years before they came here to set up something different to understand why they wrote what they wrote

the point of separtion is that the ruling govt. shall not be the church and the church shall not be the rulling govt and neither shall dictate the form or policies of the other and both shall be allowed to exist

why does everyone make this so fucking complicated

 

[dilloduck]

The point grows rather moot at election time----this is a nation of voters who prefer to have the freedom to worship as they please. Force all politicians to take a stand on this issue while they campaign. Let's see who gets elected.

 

[manu1959]

The point grows rather moot at election time----this is a nation of voters who prefer to have the freedom to worship as they please. Force all politicians to take a stand on this issue while they campaign. Let's see who gets elected.

agreed but what about the libs?

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/March/03_crt_160.htm>Candy Cane Distribution Ruled Legal</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice today announced that a federal court in Massachusetts held that a public high school violated the free speech rights of students when it suspended them for handing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them.

The students, members of a Bible club at Westfield High School, had been told that they could distribute the candy canes with a "Happy Holidays" message, but forbidden to attach a message containing a prayer and a description of the religious origins of the candy cane. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the one-day suspensions given to the students violated their first amendment rights, and entered a preliminary injunction barring the school from punishing them or enforcing similar speech restrictions against them. </blockquote>

This decision was handed down in 2003, but is relevant here. These students desired to pass out these candy canes before class time and on non-instructional time. Any abridgement of their ability to distribute these candy canes has been ruled a violation of their freedom of speech. The ACLU stood up for the students rights to express their religious views.

In Decmeber of 2003, Jerry Falwell blasted the ACLU for continuing "...to instill their vision of a Godless public square on our nation..." . This despite the fact that it was the ACLU that filed suit on behalf of the students at this high school and won the decision on their behalf. IN essence, The Revrend Falwell bore false witness against the ACLU...Not very Christian of him...Dontcha think?

In fact the ACLU is active in defending the rights of individuals all over the country in the practice and expression of their religious beliefs, and winning those cases for Christians, Muslims, Jews and practitioners of any other religion one might care to name. Folks seem to forget this and get all pissy when government sanctioning of religious expression is involved. Then, it's not a matter of free speech, but government expressing a preference for one religion over another.

 

[dmp]

Let's quote it then:
Would that you were Scrooge, you'd ban Christmas as a Federal holiday, would you not?

Point of Order - Scrooge was VERY pro-Christmas...he was a loving and giving man; putting others first. Frankly, He displayed WONDEROUS acts of kindness.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>Mr. President

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

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, and 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 <b>a wall of separation between church and state</b>. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.</blockquote>

In writing this letter, Jefferson consulted several New England politicians to be assured that, while the language would not offend, it would clearly convey the idea that neither Congress nor the Executive should take any part in anything which might be misunderstood as the establishment of religion.

Here too, we see "...a wall of separation between church and state..." which we now use a a kind of short hand for the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

 

[freeandfun1]

<blockquote>Mr. President

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

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, and 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 <b>a wall of separation between church and state</b>. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.</blockquote>

In writing this letter, Jefferson consulted several New England politicians to be assured that, while the language would not offend, it would clearly convey the idea that neither Congress nor the Executive should take any part in anything which might be misunderstood as the establishment of religion.

Here too, we see "...a wall of separation between church and state..." which we now use a a kind of short hand for the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

bully you are really ignorant aren't you? Nobody, that I have seen or heard, is arguing that there shouldn't be a separation of Church and State in the sense that the State should NEVER impose a Church on the peoples. In other words, no US Church would be Formed as was the case with the Church of England. Nobody was stating that a religion should not be able to use state lands for the purpose of expressing one's religion. If that were the case, why did Madison hire the first congressional Chaplain? A Chaplain that gives prayers on government property?

 

[Bullypulpit]

bully you are really ignorant aren't you? Nobody, that I have seen or heard, is arguing that there shouldn't be a separation of Church and State in the sense that the State should NEVER impose a Church on the peoples. In other words, no US Church would be Formed as was the case with the Church of England. Nobody was stating that a religion should not be able to use state lands for the purpose of expressing one's religion. If that were the case, why did Madison hire the first congressional Chaplain? A Chaplain that gives prayers on government property?

Nobody is arguing <i>explicitly</i> for state sanctioned religion. However, when attempts are made to build the edifice of law upon the ethics of religion, the implicit argument is made. Or is that too subtle for you?

 

[freeandfun1]

Nobody is arguing <i>explicitly</i> for state sanctioned religion. However, when attempts are made to build the edifice of law upon the ethics of religion, the implicit argument is made. Or is that too subtle for you?

then why has this only become an issue as of late? The NATION was much more Christian 50, 100, 150 years ago and nobody complained. It is only now that the left is getting radical about abolishing all signs of Christianity in this country. Could it be because of a hidden agenda?

Are not our basic laws, as outlined by the forefathers, based upon Jedeo-Christian laws? If we take your thoughts on this into consideration, then almost all laws should be abolished since many were predicated upon biblical law.

 

[insein]

The founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. Jefferson constantly wrote on the evils of church control of the state in European countries. He wanted something different here.

Want to see the evidence, try reading the first amendment.

Aint wrong.


http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Article [I.] (See Note 13)
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.

Congress shall make no law respecting one religion or prhobiting another. The founders intent, as others have stated is to not have a Mandatory state run religion as they had in European nations. that was precisely the reason for leaving there. They wanted to worship their faith without persecution from the government. The government does not persucute any religion in this country. Because 77% of the population of this country is christian means that many public officials may be in fact christians. However there hasnt been any law created to enforce the teachings of ANY religion since the founding of this country.

The only ones who have consistently lobbyied Congress to destroy the first amendment and make laws that prohibit the free exercise of a religion to practice its beliefs has been the ACLU. The ACLU has also managed to suppress the Free speech of members of this nation by not allowing so called "hate-speech" or offensive remarks to be made towards another person.

The ACLU is a major weapon of the enemy within that many people dont realize we are at war with.