Separation of Church and State?
Multiple Choice question for all you out there-
"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?
A. Pol Pot's Cambodia
B. Nazi Germany
C. USSR
D. United States
If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.
In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.
Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.
And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.
With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!
The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.
The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.
So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.
The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).
Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.
Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.
"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?
A. Pol Pot's Cambodia
B. Nazi Germany
C. USSR
D. United States
If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.
In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.
Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.
And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.
With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!
The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.
The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.
So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.
The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).
Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.
Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.
posted by Cato Uticensis at 10:03 AM
7 Comments:
Can you quote the exact section of the Nazi Constitution where church and state are separated? I can't seem to find those words.
Whoops! You flunked your own quiz.
The constitution of Democratic Kampuchea did not contain the phrase, "separation of church and state." In fact, the constitution prohibited the practice of "reactionary religions." This, of course, is direct government involvement in the practice of religion.
The Nazi party in Germany did not write a constitution. The constitution in effect from 1919 to 1945 was the constitution of the Weimar Republic. The Weimar constitution did not contain the phrase, "separation of church and state."
In 1933, the Nazis invoked Article 48 of the constitution suspending certain enumerated civil rights during a "period of unrest." The right to free practice of religion was not among those suspended by Article 48.
Article 7 of the Italian constitution does contain the clause:
"(1) State and catholic church are, each within their own reign, independent and sovereign."
Is that close enough?
How about the Belgian constitution?
"Article 20 [No Forced Religion]
No one can be obliged to contribute in any way whatsoever to the acts and ceremonies of a religion, nor to observe the days of rest."
Switzerland, perhaps?
(From article 20) "(4) No person may be forced to join a religious community, to conduct a religious act or participate in religious education."
Perhaps you were thinking about those tyrants in Spain:
"(2) No one may be obliged to make a declaration on his ideology, religion, or beliefs.
(3) No religion shall have a state character. The public powers shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and maintain the appropriate relations of cooperation, with the Catholic Church and other denominations."
Maybe you weren't thinking at all?
No, John, you failed.
ANY practitioner of religion got himself a trip to a killing field in Cambodia. Nazi Germany DID use the Weimar Constitution, which was a socialist constitution and thus separated church and state.
John, you are the one not thinking, just emitting flatulence. How does "not forcing someone to join a religion or religious feast" mean separation of church and state? Have you ever been to any of these countries? There are plenty of Christian shrines and monuments, which the Nazis often desecrated when they ruled, just like you and the ACLU! Think on that, Mr Orwellian drone.
true, it may not not have been spelled out in the German Constitution. I opened myself up to your criticism on that one. But make no mistake, Separation of Church and State was the law of the land in Nazi Germany. Concentration camps were packed to the rafters with people who believed that servig Jesus should come before servig the Fuhrer.
You see, that is the problem with Separation of Church and State. A state which recognizes no higher law is a law unto itself. And Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot are three results of such experiments. Here in America, our founding document says people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And the preamble of the Constitution says it is written to preserve the blessings of liberty. In 1787 blessing meant ONLY a gift from God. The Blessings of Liberty referred to in the preamble of the Constitution are the inalieable right endowed by Our Creator referred to in the Declaration of Idependence. these notions came from Locke, a Calvinist of the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Your Separation of Church and State is a communazi ideal which is utterly opposed to everything that is American.
You can nibble at a couple of penny-ante mistakes I made in my first paragraph. But you cannot touch the substance of the main body of the post.
another addendum-
I visited some of the countries John named. I lived in Austria for a few years as well. Austria is a socialist country, the kind of place someone like John dreams of. Yet, every Christmas they have a Kristkindlmarkt (Christ Child Market) on the grounds of the Rathaus (City Hall). Imagine the ACLU lawsuits if we did that here. Leftist tyrants in the US are more extreme even than European Socialists.
So, the separation of church and state didn't appear in the Nazi's constitution. You claim that it was the "law of the land," so where's your proof? The fact that people disobeyed the law for religious reasons and were jailed doesn't sound like proof. That's just enforcing the law, whether it's a good law (like a law against murder) or a bad law (like a law against praying).
So where's your proof that "Separation of Church and State was the law of the land in Nazi Germany"?
"Here in America, our founding document says people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
I thought that America, a political entity, was founded on the Constitution.
"Your Separation of Church and State is a communazi ideal which is utterly opposed to everything that is American."
I thought that people before the communists and Nazis endorsed the idea of separating church and state. Including Christians. Were they wrong?
That Nazi Germany was a National Socialist state where "Separation of Church and State was the law of the land is a well-established historical fact, Austin.
""Here in America, our founding document says people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
I thought that America, a political entity, was founded on the Constitution."
Well, you're mistaken. The United States first came into being as a result of the Declaration of Independence.
""Your Separation of Church and State is a communazi ideal which is utterly opposed to everything that is American."
I thought that people before the communists and Nazis endorsed the idea of separating church and state. Including Christians. Were they wrong? "
Yeah, the French Revolutionaries tried to guillotine it.
I guess what you are really driving at is to get me to admit that there are well-intentioned people who believe in this. Sure, there were and are. But the results of a state declaring itself to be god can never be good.
Post a Comment
<< Home