What and where is it in the Constitution of the United States does it say “Separation of Church and State”? No where. Yet, liberals use that phrase as a mantra whenever their cause to remove God from our lives. Be it schools, the military, municipal buildings, etc. I remember a young bright woman named Christine O’Donnell was running for the Senate a few years back. During one of her debates she pointed out that phrase was not in the Constitution. The audience, mainly liberal that day, released an audible sigh of “ohhhhhhhhhh she is so stupid”. She was right. Before I go into their latest attempts to remove religion to the point where you can only worship in church or your home, allow me to clear up the misunderstanding of “Separation of Church and State”. Again, it is not in the Constitution, yet a recent poll showed that 69% think it is part of the Constitution.
Mainly, the Liberal turns to the first amendment: “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.” Do you see the phrase “Separation of Church and State”? I bet you don’t.
The term actually came from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. He was answering a letter that they wrote him. They were nervous about Government intrusions and oversight of religious freedoms. Thomas Jefferson wrote back explaining that the first amendment was to protect religion from the government via Separation of Church and State. His letter never took on the meaning of keeping God out of government, but government out of God. So there you have a little Separation of Church and State 101. To this day it is a credo of the ACLU and atheist’s organizations.
Two recent stories have come about in the past few days where this battlefield has been won by people who view religion important in their lives. Sadly a third story where religion has lost a battle. First the good news. A Tennessee high school was warned by the ACLU that they must remove prayers before, or at anytime during athletic events. Before a game two leaders of the cheer leading squad took it upon themselves to begin the Lord’s Prayer. Immediately both squads of cheerleaders joined in as well as all the people in the stands. They knew they were told “No praying”, but they said later that God is important to them, and their community. That they do it for the safety of the players, as well as for all to have a safe drive home. If you are an atheist I suppose your reaction would be “Oh, the horror! The nerve! How offensive!”
You see, that is what liberals are all about. If there are 499 people in the stands that would pray, but just one who is offended? IT MUST BE STOPPED!
Do understand, there are many liberals who believe in God, but it seems to me it is solely the liberals who are atheists, and you don’t see conservatives trying to remove God from our lives.
The second successful battle with the liberals was at Arkansas State University. Atheist’s saw crosses on the football team’s helmets. They complained, the school banned the crosses, but after an outrage they reversed the ban. What were the crosses for? Two members of the team (one a staff member) had passed away. It was a memorial to them. It amazes me that these kind of stories always are targeting acts of kindness, or morality. I am sure the ACLU and atheist’s would feel right at home with Occupiers who defecate on police cars, stab other occupiers, and leave parks such a mess it cost millions to clean it up.
Sadly, as good people win a battle here and there, this topic has more losses than gains. The air force has banned and done away with “So help me God” during their enlistment oath. One of many losses in this arena where the military is concerned. yet, when a President is sworn in he will say this. Will “in God we trust” disappear from our coinage? You can bet it is on the list of things to go if the ACLU and atheist have their way.
You see, the founding fathers never meant to keep religion out of public or government places. They only meant to keep the government from intruding on religion. If that is a false claim (and it isn’t), the relief on top of the Supreme Court would not have the Ten Commandments. We never would have stamped “in God we trust” on our coins, No president would put his hand on a bible when being sworn in. etc.
Yet, this administration has attacked religion and truly breaking the Constitution. Declaring that religious organizations must include in their premiums the funding of contraceptives and abortion drugs against their religious convictions. Even if “Separation of Church and State” was in the Constitution certainly it is a two way street. If you can’t have God in school, the government certainly can’t tell a religious organization what to do. However, although it is not in the Constitution, the Constitution is clear that government must not get involved in how religion is run: “Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof”.
Lastly I would like to supply you with a link. A link to a Youtube video made in the mid 1960’s of Red Skelton reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Do take note of his last words as he makes his point, and apply that today. How profound it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM
God Bless America, and say a pray for the atheists. That is what Jesus would do.
Listen to The Marty O Radio Show at these popular sites
http://themartyoshow.weebly.com/
http://the405media.com/2014/09/21/the-separation-of-church-and-state-myth/
http://themartyoshow.podomatic.com/entry/2014-09-21T23_19_27-07_00
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
The Separation of Church and State Myth
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the Constitution serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.