Re: Church & State

More | Report Post

I agree with Frank. "The persecution experienced in England compelled
them to offer protection for any church from the state, however, there
was never intent to protect the state from church."

I would substitute church for "a Christian person" or "a Jewish person"
or any other person. I believe that the word "establishment" is an
important word to consider. In 1555 England returned to Roman
Catholicism. Protestants were persecuted and about 300 were burned at
the stake. People were forced because of the horrible consequences
before them to worship/believe/exercise a certain religion. I'm not
seeing any executions by the government because everyone isn't
practicing "Christianity." There is no "establishment" of a religion
in the United States.

However, an angle of this discussion is often ignored. There are many
decisions by the courts that are "prohibiting the free exercise" of
religion, specifically Christianity or anyone other religion that
professes there is a God...I would take a guess that about 90% of the
world believes there is a God. Why is it that the majority always has
to succumb to the minority these days? It defeats the purpose and
benefits of being in the majority!

To quote the great Abraham Lincoln our government is a “government of
the people by the people for the people.” If about 80% of the United
States is of the Judeo/Christian faith wouldn’t it stand to reason that
you would see reflections of that in the government? I
repeat…’reflections’, not establishment of… A federal judge just
declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools
unconstitutional. Is this not prohibiting my freedom of speech, my
freedom to freely exercise my belief in God? I don’t remember being
forced to say the pledge and there were many kids that did not when I
was in school. We aren’t hanging kids in the school yard because they
don’t recite the pledge. Why is it now unconstitutional to recite it?
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make law that says I can’t.

“It is increasingly clear that we are a nation at odds with ourselves
and our history. On three separate occasions, the Supreme Court has
ruled that America is a Christian nation. The Court’s 1892
determination that ‘this is a Christian nation,’ was followed in 1931
by a subsequent ruling that Americans are a ‘Christian people’ and,
again in 1952, when Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court,
said that ‘we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a
Supreme Being.’ But today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, determined
otherwise. That the complaint of one atheist could conceivably cause
the Pledge of Allegiance to be removed from every school classroom in
this nation is a violation of the fundamental principle of our
Constitution. George Washington, the president of the Constitutional
Convention, the Father of our country, and the first president of the
United States, declared that principle when he said ‘the fundamental
principle of our Constitution ... enjoins that the will of the majority
shall prevail.’ The Founders knew that if an increasingly small
minority was enabled to prevail, then democracy would be destroyed and
should that number be reduced to one, we would be back in the same
position that we were in under King George and this is not freedom or
democracy, it is tyranny! This is a deplorable ruling that must be
overturned. It is at odds with the facts and the law. If ‘under God’
goes, then surely some misguided legal purist on the federal bench
will, one day soon, determine that the Declaration of Independence
(‘endowed by their Creator’) and the U.S. Constitution (‘Done…in the
year of our Lord’) must go as well.” - Dr. D. James Kennedy
http://www.coralridge.org/PledgeofAllegiance.htm

> On 7/11/05, Frank wrote:
>> The way I see it, there is no doubt that the founding fathers
>> intended that the government be guided by a widely accepted set of
>> moral values that would keep it from becoming corrupt. The
>> persecution experienced in England compelled them to offer
>> protection for any church from the state, however, there was never
>> intent to protect the state from church. Since the only way to
>> have a successful society that, for the most part, governs itself;
>> that society has to rely on some base of morality... otherwise,
>> that society will inevitably degenerate and dissolve. This is
>> hard to argue when you sit back and think on the last 40 years or
>> so, and how a decline in values has harmed our social fabric. The
>> future of our country are being raised on average less refined,
>> less civilized, less intelligent, more obnoxious, less
>> independent, less honorable... you get the idea... I doubt anyone
>> can say they don't see more (by more I mean both in number, and
>> intensity) disrespectful, ill-mannered, unattended children
>> running about than say 15-20 years ago... (and not just because of
>> population increase). Thats my 1.5 cents (I leave out the other
>> half cent, since I've probably bored most of you by now), thanks
>> for the forum. :)