Religion US Constitution

RHODE ISLAND SCHOOL PRAYER PLAQUE DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS STUPIDITY OF LEFT’S NEUTRALITY OF RELIGION NONSENSE

 

The founders and framers of the US Constitution and the Republic should be spinning in their graves over the mindset on display in this situation. Well perhaps they have been spinning in their graves ever since 1947, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Everson v. Board of Education case. A Supreme Court Justice at the time, Hugo Black, (an anti-Catholic KKK’er) introduced a wrong interpretation of the framers’ original intention in his  brief about the case, falsely saying that a “separation of church and state existed” in the constitution.

Though the ruling went in favor of the plaintiff, it set in stone the misguided notion that “all religious expression, whatsoever, was expressly forbidden in public institutions by the framers of the constitution”. Republican Tea Party candidate (running for the state senate seat in Delaware) Christine O’Donnell, was widely ridiculed for her statement during a debate that there isn’t a “separation of church and state” clause written in the constitution.

She was absolutely correct to state that it’s not there, because it isn’t, what does however exist, are the following words in the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”

Only until the mid 1940’s, due to political machinations of a supreme court judge, has that sentence been turned on its ear to mean something completely opposite to the framers’ original intentions, that being, to erase all expression of faith in any of its public institutions throughout the US. As I have written about this earlier, the original 13 colonies, prior to becoming member states of the union, had publicly funded religions of their own (through publicly approved taxation), and held onto that practice as they became official member states of the United States of America.

It was their full intention all along to secure this right as sovereign states within the union, ensuring that the federal government in Washington would never impose a federal state religion upon its member states, thereby superseding their own state religions. They never meant for the total eradication of (member) state religion from public life. That sentiment was seen in their invoking of the name of the creator in public addresses and in official public activities, including in symbols and in other state regalia.

What’s happening in New England, and throughout the entire nation is a bastardization of the framers’ original intentions, thereby violating the people’s rights to freedom of religion, which means in public settings as well. The ignoramus that O’Donnell was debating (Democrat Chris Coons), the ignorant moderators, the ignorant law students in the audience (chuckling), as well as this ignorant journalist writing for The Guardian, are completely wrong, and regardless of the number who back their thinking, does not negate Christine O’Donnell’s correct understanding of the freedom of religion protected in the US constitution, no matter how many people get it wrong. More here on it.

Tyranny is tyranny no matter how you slice it, whether it be by a majority, or by the hand of a lone atheist teenager and her ACLU supporters. KGS

Atheist teen forces school to remove prayer from wall after 49 years

CRANSTON, R.I. — She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

More here.

10 Responses

  1. Now that man has officially elevated himself to the apex of creation, we will finally experience utopia on earth. It’s reassuring to know that secular wisdom has ushered in the age of utopia. I see evidence of this inner wisdom every time I read YouTube posts or hear a speech from the Obama regime, Chomsky or Rachel Maddow. Makes me feel so warm and fuzzy that man has finally made it!

  2. Dallas wrote : Now that man has officially elevated himself to the apex of creation

    That path leads to the Superman, the all knowing dictators- Slain, Mao, Hitler, Pol pot, and the man-child Obama.

  3. 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 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) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), 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, 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 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 phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) 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. 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). 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.”

    1. You underline my point in the very last sentence: The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” That was the sole intention of the clause. It was not meant for a national religion to supersede the state religions of the new member states of the union.

      1. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope (as Madison made plain if you read his “last sentence” in the context of what he said). The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

  4. I’m not religious but I don’t think the rights of one individual should trump the rights of the majority. I see it as a a power grab by the atheist chick, a need to exert her power in the situation regardless of the feelings of the majority. This is what happens when “minority rights” get out of control. Minorities should be protected, NOT elevated in status.

    1. Why you would support those who would flout the Constitution rather than someone who would uphold it is not apparent. This is not about majority and minority rights. The government is constrained to act according to the Constitution REGARDLESS of whether those on one or the other side of an issue amount to millions or dozens or one.

      1. You completely ignore the solid basis of my argument. The founding fathers and framers were concerned about the role of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that it would impose a national religion that would supersede the state religions of the nascent states that joined the union. They were for a wall, but one between the Federal government and the individual states. What we now have are secular ‘sharia’ courts dictating, ensuring that secular orthodoxy reigns supreme thereby controlling all religious life in America, Get it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *