That's right. It was merely how Thomas Jefferson understood it.

Perhaps he lied.




Which just goes to show how much respect the Supreme Court has for Thomas Jefferson and how well-established his interpretation of the constitution is among the relevant circles.

A few days ago Lifesite News posted an article about what's happening in England that has some interesting similiarities that are parallel to what's happening in the US and also adds some points of interest to some of your comments.

Here is a copy and paste of the article:

Anglican Bishop: Vacuum Created by Christian Culture Collapse Will be Filled by Radical Islam
Says in the 1960s Church leaders "all but capitulated" to rise of neo-Marxism

By Hilary White

ROCHESTER, UK, June 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "The beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith" and the loss of that faith in public life has resulted not only in social breakdown, but the creation of a moral and cultural vacuum that is being filled by violent radical Islamism says a senior Anglican prelate.

In an article in the new political magazine Standpoint, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, pinpointed the "social and sexual revolution" of the 1960s orchestrated by Marxist academics, as the source of the sudden collapse of Christian values. The "endless self-indulgence" of the "new Britain" has resulted in skyrocketing rates of drunkenness, drug abuse, street violence, family breakdown. He added that the solutions offered - talk of "respect, tolerance and good behaviour" popular with Britain's politicians - are "hardly adequate for the task before us".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place," he wrote.

Britain's social values such as the dignity of human life, equality before the law and freedom are developments of Christian values, the Pakistan-born Nazir-Ali said, and without their Christian foundation, will break down in favour of new belief systems based on different values.

"Radical Islamism, for example, will emphasise the solidarity of the umma [worldwide community of the Muslim faithful] against the freedom of the individual. Instead of the Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety and the importance of 'saving face'."

The bishop wrote that Britain's historical reality is that it was Christianity that unified a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes, fiefdoms and kingdoms" into a nation conscious of its identity and strong enough to form a global empire. Dr. Nazir-Ali credited the rise of neo-Marxism among academics in the 1960s who orchestrated the "social and sexual revolution" to which Church leaders "all but capitulated".

In this revolution, genuine Christian values of openness have been replaced by the "newfangled and insecurely founded" doctrine of multiculturalism. This has resulted in a Britain made up of "segregated communities and parallel lives" with little social foundation to unify and give it identity.

Bishop Nazir-Ali's article closely followed comments he made last week that Britain's Christians were failing in their duty to Muslims in refusing to attempt to convert them to Christianity, a suggestion that was greeted with howls of outrage from his fellow Anglican officials who insisted that they "show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations".

Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said that "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."

Peter Hitchens, a columnist and author, wrote in the Daily Mail this weekend asking why Britain "had to wait" for Bishop Nazir-Ali "to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam?"

"Most of our homegrown prelates are more interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law."

Hitchens noted that it is well known that British foreign and intelligence agencies after the Second World War were "maggoty with Communist penetration".

"I am sometimes tempted to wonder if the same organisation targeted both political parties (especially the Unconservatives), the Church of England, the BBC, the Civil Service, the legal profession and the universities."

Ominously, Hitchens adds, "We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism.
"Ripe, in fact, for a foreign takeover."

Leauki posts #20


Lula posts #23


Leauki posts #26





LULA POSTS #76

lEAUKI POSTS #78

Exactly. So here you refute your own statement in post #20. There is no constitutional requirement to keep religion and state separate. On the contrary, as I posted (#76).. the Northwest Ordinance, Article II, still in effect....




Leauki posts:

Actually, it's more like it was merely how certain activist judges over the years misunderstood and then mis-applied what Jefferson said regarding the "wall of separation" when they made their fateful decisions to kick God out of public schools.

Almighty God is interested in nations and civil government. He created the entire basis for civil authority that can be found in Romans 13.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. .....For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain, he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be subject not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

So, here we find that God is interested in governing authorities, the 3 spheres of authority being the family authority, the church authority and the civil authority. So, Almighty God sure did have something to do with the founding of America.


With these atrocious Supreme Court decisions, man stomped in, misued his authority and kicked God out. We are reaping the whirlwind. We are reaping what we sow.

Yes, I agree that there is such a danger.




Ok. I admit that the fact that Jeffersion understood the constitution to mean that there is a wall between religion and state proves beynd doubt that the constitution does not say such a thing, despite the fact that the Supreme Court also agrees with Jefferson this.

Was that was you saw here?



Yes, we are.

According to the stats San Chonino provided and judging from what we can observe in the world, we are living in a better place BECAUSE of the secular state.

You are still pretending that everybody agrees, despite seeing evidence to the contrary, that having G-d (that is your god, who is different from mine, apparently) in schools is a good thing. People disagree with that.

You not only have to show that the US constitution does not mean what it says and that Jeffersion misread it, but that there is a reason for anybody to care.

So far all you two have demonstrated is that you don't carer about actual results and just want YOUR religion taught in schools.

I'll offer a comprimise. Teach Hinduism in American schools and I am all for it!

Except I can get behind that!

We're not pretending everybody agrees in today's world. We know we are now swimming upstream, but what we are saying is that it was a good thing the bible and God were in the school systems and that our country once upon a time was in agreement.

Andrew Jackson said: "That book sir, is the rock on which our republic sits."

so how does that mesh with what Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists? It has to mean that Jefferson meant (as we believe and makes sense) that no religion would be instituted by the government and that the US would be a place where freedom of religion would be honored.

George Washington said: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the bible."

They were pretty much in agreement back then with a small minority in opposition. They wanted the children to know the bible and God and the school systems were very open to this type of learning. And our nation flourished as a result.

Look at us now. We are going downhill fast and will continue to as long as we disregard God and his word. We are in trouble.

Newt Gingrich recently said: "Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967. Prior to 67 many wondered if Israel would survive. After 67, Israel seemed militarily dominent. I would say we are now back to a question of survivial.

Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly. We are sleepwalking through this process as though it's only a problem of communication."

Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It's very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel o the US are currently capable of dealing with."

When we fought for this country back in the 1700's we did it with much prayer and belief in God. The next fight for our country will be not yield the same results. Read Deut 28 if you want to see what the futue holds for the US.

If anytime we need God back in schools, workplaces and even churches...it's today.

LEAUKI POSTS:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."The First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I think, by the First Amendment, that the Founder's intent was to protect religion from the federal government....and...that's exactly what Jefferson was saying to the Danbury Baptists when he said the now famous words, "wall of separation between Church and State".

Let's look at what we know:

Jefferson wasn't the author of the FIrst AMendment.
He wasn't a delegate to the COnstitutional Congress.
He wasn't a member of Congress when the First AMendment was passed and ratified.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist wrote, "Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constituional amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptists Assoc. was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment."

In speaking of the "wall of separation", Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from the federal government since the First Amendment was a "wall" protecting the church from the state.

His letter drew very little interest until Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 Everson v. Education case cited Jefferson's wall of separation metaphor as though it was the definitive statement of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.




Yes, ever since Everson v. Education, the Judiciary have mis-used this phrase over and over to remove religion and religious expression from public schools and property....and we are reaping the whirlwind.

Jefferson didn't see the First Amendment as meaning separation of government from God or separation of law and policies from the Judeo-Christian ethos. Just read the Declaraton of Independence which Jefferson wrote. This document proclaims that Americans are entitled to be an independent nation by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and that it is self-evident that all men are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights....they underscore the conviction that God gave us life, He gave us liberty and the right to pursue happiness.

KFC,

Thanks for your comment #83.




Let's not forget government to that list.   

Leauki posts:



Note that the First AMendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion (singular)...that is what the Founders considered to be Christianity, not Hinduism.

It was to protect religion from the federal government, yes. And that includes all religions, including atheism.

But what you are calling for is a government that decides which religion to choose and then teach that as truth in state schools. That's establishment of a religion.




Which Christianity?

If American state schools taught the Catholic doctrine of teaching evolution in science class, we wouldn't have this conversation.

"Freedom of religion" never meant "freedom for Christianity but not other religions" (or even "freedom for my type of Christianity and no other".

If the founders had meant Christianity only, they would have said "Christianity". Specifically, they would have said which Christianity.

That problem was already solved in England. They have a state church.

But the US does not.

And for you the idea of teaching a certain religion in state schools, in lieu of science even, does not contradict the idea that no religion would be instituted by the government?

That's weird.

well it wasn't in the 18th and 19th centuries.

My grandmother as well as my mom were reciting the Lord's Prayer and having bible readings in public school. There were no Christian or Homeschooling back then. When I was growing up that was taken out but we still sang hymns right up until I reached middle school. My grandmother and mom are still alive to tell about it. Their generation fared alot better than ours did. It didn't hurt them one bit.

So why the change all of a sudden?

Experimental Creationism:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/314483/Experimental_Creationism

KFC POSTS #32


This is certainly true of a child born from a rape or incest.



Hmmmm, I've been thinking about this one...not sure I agree here.

Under God's law only those people who are married are to have sexual relations, right?

So His law therefore excludes every one else from having sexual relations...which means those who engage in sexual relations are committing a sin against God's law.

Fornication is one of the sins St.Paul explicitly condemns 1Cor.6. "Do not be deceived" he says which means to make out that such actions are good is worse than to commit them. We cannot render God's commandments null or reduce people's responsibility to obey them by saying they made a mistake or had a weak moment.

The person has to be sorry for their sin and repent of it and avoid doing it again. Shun immorality is what St.Paul says.

having a child out of wedlock, say as a young girl, does not make her immoral. It makes her a sinner. Just like the rest of us.

All sin is immoral. All sin is against God. For some reason we have certain sins we deem worst than others and I'd say having a baby out of wedlock is one we have decided is pretty bad. Or we used to. It's not so bad nowadays like it once was.

Now, I'm not advocating this of course but to attach this label to a young unmarried girl is not fair. There are plenty of immoral people who are, in my book, very immoral in the fact that they continually exercise their sin nature with no regard for man or God. They may not get pregnant but have secret immoral practices or unethical practices that would make this young girl look like an angel in comparison. But we tend to pile up our critical thinking on certain sins and/or sinners.

You can commit an immoral act, learn from it and move on seeking man's and God's forgiveness or you can stay in your immorality only thinking of self and be hardened by it.

I think there's a diff between calling someone immoral for living a life of immorality and one who has a weak moment and commits an immoral act.

Someone sent me this email which I've decided to add as an addendum to my original blog.


Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word 'God' is mentioned....

A kid in Arizona wrote the attached:


NEW School prayer:
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

KFC POSTS: #7

Lula posts:

Shortly after I posted this article, I got very busy getting our house ready to put on the real estate market and am now getting caught up on re-reading some comments.

Leauki,

I do not want to leave your question unanswered. I agree 100% with what KFC said. In addition to my comments of post #39, I would clarify my saying there is but one God by saying when a Muslim prays to “Allah”, he is praying to the only God there is.

Beyond this, the conception of God referred to by the name “Allah” is not Trinitarian meaning there is no Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is not Incarnational. There is no Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. Allah reveals no Redemptive love and rejects the way of the Cross. That's why we Christians cannot take the Muslim conception of Allah for in doing so we'd have to deny Christ as the Incarnate God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.