The Wall -Separation of Church and State

The following are excerpts from four books of study, which I encourage everyone to read.  The first, “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation of Church and State” by Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of Justice, law and society at American University in Washington, D.C. The Second, “Original Intent, the Courts, The Constitution, & Religion” by David Barton, the 3rd, “A People’s History of the American Revolution, How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence”, by Ray Raphael.  The 4th book, is “Slouching Towards Gomorrah, “Modern Liberalism and the American Decline”, by Judge Robert H. Bork.  Also references from the American Center for Law and Justice, Chief Justice Jay Sekolov with cases that either appeared or are appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I do not agree nor do any of those above agree that the Constitution needs to be liberalized or updated for a modern world.  For if we touch this as most of the liberal judges may intend and secularize this country, we will be destroyed.  Now, with this new administration in Washington, we are at a more dangerous time in our history, than ever before.  For this new President, Obama, a Socialist, perhaps as far as being a Marxist.  It becomes a twisted message out of context, and this ideologue is not the original intent of our Constitution, nor  our forefathers, nor a history of Christianity in this great nation.  It is however, getting in bed with the liberals that walk a fine line to Communism  and want us to be dependent on big government.  During this election and before, we heard Rev. Wright expound on his white hatreds, as well as Jesse Jackson using negativism to keep the Black people own in victim thinking, that they cannot rise up and improve themselves, while it put money in his Rainbow
Coalition.  It was a form of psychological abuse and reverse racism to keep them down, whereby, he was the one who controlled the masses.  That’s all turned around now, with this election.  It is no longer an excuse.  Most conservative Blacks have a more positive outlook, and never fell for that line of thinking, and became extremely successful.

The unconstitutionality of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:  Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: 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”.

However, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to reimpose the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal as censoring talk radio (just like Russia, China, Venezuela, and all Communist dictatorships!)
and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs (as our now 32 CZARS)
as the arbiters o “fairness” rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas and FREE SPEECH under our Constitution!

Whereby, the U.S. experimented with the “Fairness Doctrine” for 38 years – from 1949 through 1987, during which time it was repeatedly used by Presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism (which I presume, would be this woman 70, too and all her blogs!…they can jail me!)

Wherefore, the abandonment of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech, starting with Rush Limbaugh and Christian AM radio and tv, providing Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints, informing Americans about what their government leaders are doing.

Now, too, (March 12th) there are two media causes for concern.  A judge in No. Carolina ordered 3 Christian home schooled children back to public classes.  Next, the State of CT wants to take over the Catholic Church in that State, whereby , neither the Bishop, Priests, or Vatican would have ANY say or control over that Church.  (Now in the last few weeks, too, retyping this, World Net reported that a Christian home fellowship was stopped in CA.)  Next, we won’t even be allowed to pray in my DAR meetings. Do we not see what is happening here in America?

This all falls under the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.  Again details that follow Jefferson’s metaphor.   But, because of Justice Hugo Black (who comes up again later) in Everson v Board of Education (1947) set the tone to follow.  Now it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court may be challenged again.

But, the “Establishment Clause” is this:  The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means that neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. (Or for that matter take over the Catholic Church in CT.) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.  Neither can force nor influence a  person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.  Neither can a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.  In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and state.”   From Jefferson’s letter to the CT Baptist Association, later incorporated as law by Judge Black.  (which was illegal…as it never was part of the Constitution..only a letter.  But Black sat at the Supreme Court. Get it?)

Therefore, as you read on about The Wall and the ORIGINAL intent of our Forefathers, keep in mind this FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, too, which is not dead; now being revitalized and AGAINST our First Amendment Rights to Free Speech, and it is wholly UN-American that the government should be the watchdog of the press, and a policeman of free speech.  (Even Helen Thomas, the most liberal of the press, spoke out didn’t she?  A first!)  As opposed to the uniquely American ideal from our Founding Fathers, of a FREE people and a FREE press, being vigilant watchdogs of government.  Else, I predict, that another civil unrest and revolution would ravage America!

Now, in the first place Jefferson’s “WALL” is a metaphor.  It is referred as such to all the legal minds and in the first paragraph.  In the Establishment Clause, under the First Amendment, it states, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (1791) However, most people are not taught in school, nor even realize that the term “separation” or “wall” never appeared in the Constitution.  On New Year’s in 1802, Thomas Jefferson penned a letter ot the Danbury, CT Baptist Association.  In it, he used the term “wall of separation”.  Years after the Constitution was signed, “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 & not options.  I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole people which declared that their legislature should make  no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building the wall of separation between Church and State.”

Whereby, it was resurrected again by the Supreme Court in 1878, also then in 1947.  The vision of the wall seems to have molded almost all attempts to analyze the First Amendment’s control over the Government’s relationship to religion.  The court concluded in 1879 “Coming as this does from and acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure (Jefferson’s Danbury letter) “May be ACCEPTED” almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope (called the Scope Trial) and effect of the (first) amendment thus secured.”  Justice Black’s gloss on the metaphor (adding his letter to the Danbury…without law…WITHOUT BASIS…WITHOUT CONGRESS …) has come to dominate modern political and legal discourse, whifh is not surprising, because the metaphor’s current frame dates from its re-emergence in Everson.  (Now , too, with our new Supreme Court nominee, do you see how important it is, that they do NOT use the bench to MAKE laws?as this nominee did with the fireman?)   In McColum v Board of Education 1948, the following term, Justice H. Black confirmed the extent to whifh the Court had “constitutionalized” the “wall” metaphor.  “The majority in the Everson case, and minority as shown by quotations from dissenting views, agreed that the First Amendment’s language, properly interpreted had erected a  “Wall of Separation between Church and State.”  Again never intended nor put in our Constitution!)

In years since, Federal and State courts too, continue to reference a phrase which is a METAPHOR ONLY!  It has become the “locus Classicus” of the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and civil State, thereby, mandating a secular policy.  It was NOT Jefferson’s intention.  In Oct. 1801 as Jefferson became Magistracy, the Danbury Baptist Association sent a letter to Jefferson expressing great satisfaction in his appointment.  In the new President, the Connecticut Baptists  (churches were most certainly involved in politics then) found an ardent defender of religious liberty.  Jefferson replied, in what was to become contested ever since.  His address to them was written about three times, while he edited and crossed out….and THEN  asked the then Attorney General Eli Lincoln, for his legal advise.  It was Lincoln’s suggestion that the term was born.  However, Jefferson deleted another word that emphasized an emphatic and enduring separation between church and the civil state. In the draft letter Jefferson initially wrote “wall of separation”. He then removed the word “eternal”, and also “merely temporal”, which left it sounding secular.

However, even though Supreme Courts since Black have taken out of original context, in 1779, when Jefferson was still Governor of VA, the ill for Establishing Religious Freedom was penned, and it included the following punitive provision:


Although never enacted, it was sponsored by Madison, for fasting and thanksgiving.  George Washington wrote in 1789, “If I could now conceive that the general Government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would he more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and ever species of religious persecution.  (written to the United Baptist Churches.)

Yet, this metaphor has been running out of control in the courts; and those like the ACLU that want to secularize this nation and liberals, atheists, are twisting the very intention of our founding fathers.  Instead, now it is Christians who are censured as I wrote awhile ago to C-Span.  Churches are sleeping!  And Christians don’t STAND UP, and NEED discernment and to be vocal and participate in government, or America (especially now with this new President) else all will be lost.  And I thank Glenn Beck for his 912 Project, and the Tea Parties all over America,  that this President just laughs off.  We have 30 million illiterates in America and got rid of religion and morality.  In 1947 President Harry Truman said this is a CHRISTIAN NATION and then came Everson to the Supreme Court and Justice Black and through him and the ACLU, we are becoming a secular nation.  Is that what we want?  This past 4th of July weekend, Coral Ridge ministries was offering a free book, by the late Dr. James Kennedy, “Beginning Again”, and they have a college, called “Patrick Henry College”.
Alleluia!  I see vision and revolution in our future!  Not to mention all the Christian groups Liberty is affiliated with!

Chief Justice Rehnquist, perhaps the most vociferous critic of the “wall” concluded:  “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but, unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”  Thomas Jefferson was of course, in France at the time the Constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States.  His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years AFTER the Amendments were passed by Congress, yet thereafter, taken out of context by Judge Black who himself,  ADDED it to the Constitution and made up his own law!   And for the life of me, I don’t understand why any Christian groups or the ACLJ never challenged it’s decision.  Jefferson would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.  The “crucible of the litigation”, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but, the amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinion can make the errors true.  The “Wall of Separation between Church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history; and a metaphor which as proved useless as a guide to JUDGING.  It should frankly and explicitly be ABANDONED!

Wherefore, Jefferson’s wall has done what walls frequently do; it has obstructed the view.  Therefore, the critics too, evoke the poet Robert Frost, who observed in his poem; “Mending the Wall”; “Sometimes there is that doesn’t love a wall/ that wants it down.”  (ACLU and liberals with they’re own agenda.) And Justice Black turned it drastically away from what it once stood for!

Raphael wrote, concerning the Revolution, “Massachusetts farmers did disturb the government.” In 1786 the closed courts at Worcester, Springfield, Northampton, Great Barrington, Taunton, and Concord.  The distress of the farmers, who still thought of themselves as the “body of the people” (like us now?) was real and widespread…and so was the distress of the Native Americans, devastated by war as well as slaves.  Euro-American women were not set back by the Revolution, but neither did they see a significant change in their political status.  In our eagerness to embrace the ideological significance of the Revolution, we should not forget to pay some attention to the numerous contemporaries who did not live to see a personal advantage accruing to the notions of “Liberty” and “equality”.  There is another danger in treating the idea of equality in modern terms.  Today, ‘equality’ is generally interpreted to include protection for the rights of ‘minorities’, during the Revolution, the “Body of the People”, referred exclusively to the MAJORITY.  The hardships of particulars are not to be considered, wrote Christopher Gadsden, “when the good of the WHOLE is the object in view.”  Oddly, we who are white will be the minority in 50 years.

Yet, Raphael wrote, “The opposite is true as well.  When women marched for the right to vote, when workers sat down in their factories for the right to form unions, when African Americans engaged in mass demonstrations to terminate Jim Crow in the South…THESE extensions of democracy also reflected our beginnings, mirroring the Yankees who paraded “with staves and music” during the court closures of 1774!

Our Revolutionary heritage works both ways. “The body of the people,” the dominant force during the 1770’s , has empowered and deprived.  Some Americans could vote, most could not; gut they ALL took part in the political process, whether they wanted to or not.  (And now the ACLU is stripping away all that the framers fought for.) It is because we are a Christian Nation, that had a humbleness of spirit and loved God and country.  THAT is what sets us as a great nation.  That we always up and set the captives free.  And freedom always comes with a price.  Ecclesiastes, ” A time for peace, and a time for war.”  He who states his case first seems right until his rival comes and cross-examines him.”

Barton says too, “The final strategy used by the Court to bolster its argument is one previously introduced: historical omission.  Not only does the Court regularly omit cases prior to 1947, from its’ discussions, it also DISREGARDS quotes from prominent Founders other than Jefferson or Madison.  As explained by one government researcher, such omission is an effective strategy.  Liberal and secular bias is primarily accomplished by “exclusion” by leaving out the opposing position.  It further implies either that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues, or that there exists no recorded statements from other Founders pertinent to the separation question.  Both implications are wrong…numerous writing DO exist.  Further he writes: “The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of Society, HE (God) has taken care to impress its’ precepts so indelibly on our hearts the they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain.  We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. “Thomas Jefferson.  Does that sound like he wanted to exclude God that the interpreters too out of context with the wall?

Judge Bork writes: “There appears to be only one means by which the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, can be brought back to Constitutional legitimacy.  That would be a Constitutional Amendment making any Federal or State court decision subject to being overruled by a majority vote of each House of Congress.  The mere suggestion of such a remedy is certain to bring down cries that this would endanger our freedoms.  To CHANGE our Constitution and not recognize the importance of our Founding Father’s Intent, would lead to the destruction of America as we have known it.”  (Yet , Judge Black DID indeed change it from the bench.)

Bork also said,  “We should not be surprised, then to find the United States Supreme Court “interpreting” (ie Sodamayer) American Constitution in accordance with foreign court decisions.There could hardly be a plainer demonstration that some Justices are leafing the text and history of the U.S. Constitution behind for a left-liberal international moral consensus among Olympians.  Whereby, they are now basing their decisions on international precedent.”  Since when do we as Americans, answer and have other countries dictate our laws? That’s why America was born, to escape dictatorship and religious tyranny.  IN A FREE COUNTRY PEOPLE COMPLAIN WITHOUT SUFFERING, IN A DICTATORSHIP, PEOPLE SUFFER WITHOUT COMPLAINING.  I love my country. It is the greatest in the world to me.  But, we need to stand guard too, and protect it’s principals to keep it so.  We are now with all the sex, scandals, reality shows, so illiterate and like Sodom and Gomorrah and somehow through the grace of God we need to get morality back in America.  We also need to vote for politicians that are not crooks, and deceivers, (wolves in sheep’s clothing) but that have character, ethics, honesty, morals, and are devoid of evil cunning.  That big grin on this President hid the cunning and goals deep within.  We got snookered!  Our voices in any election must be heard as conservatives, and to hold them accountable; especially those of us that are evangelical Christians.  We need our political voice to be heard, and keep Congress on it’s toes.  Remember the one to come that will be so charismatic, with a knack for leading masses, bearing all false promises and peace….isn’t that how the Anti-Christ will appear?  And the truth will set us free.

Look up.  Keep your eyes on Jesus through these tough times, not man, or especially this President, and be vigil.

Other references are Pat Robertson’s “Courting Disaster” and Judge Napolitano’s book “Constitutional Chaos”.  I dedicate this piece to my Patriot Ancestor, Major Ezekiel Worthen, who fought in the Revolutionary War, the French Indian War, the King George War, and the Siege at Louisburg, as well as being with General John Stark in NH when he started Rogers Rangers.  I hope someday to meet this man in Heaven.  Perhaps my son has already seen him.    God bless you all who read and studied this.  I hope you pass on the site for you all must know as Christians what we are fighting for!



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s