The Bible

Mickey,
 
If you think Christians are “monsters who terrorize”, what do you think of the Islamist who cut off heads of Christians? How many heads have Christians cut off lately? If you think the Bible is a symbol of “religious oppression”, the Koran says “Oppression is worse than murder” in Al-Baqra Verse No:191, at 002:191 Rashad.
 
The Bible – which represents “faith” and our “country, founded as one nation under God.”
 
I want the attacks on the religious liberty of the brave men and women in our Armed Forces to stop.
 
This insult to our soldiers must end.
 
Honoring the faith of our soldiers doesn’t violate the Constitution.
 
The First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Obviously, the words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.
 
So where did the words “Separation of Church and State.” come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase “Separation of Church and State.” When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples’ religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson’s letter. . .
 
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” 
 
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the “wall”, to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.
 
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words “Separation of Church and State” to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done.
(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),
The term “separation of church and state” can also be traced back to James Madison – considered the Father of the Constitution.
This is the real Original Intent by James Madison:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (James Madison’s Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (James Madison Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Jefferson’s concept of “separation of church and state” first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S.,98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, “The word ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.” The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the “separation” paragraph from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, “coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
In 1878 “separation of church and state” became part of the Establishment Clause by law.
The Warren Court heard two cases on the Separation of Church and State: Engle v. Vitale (1962) and Abbington v. Schempp (1963). Both had to do with prayer in school.
In the Engle v. Vitale case, the Supreme Court ruling under Warren used Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, II Writings of Madison (15) in their opinion:https://www.nationalcenter.org/cc7252.htm
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
The Supreme Court heard the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in 1971 and ruled in favor of the Establishment ClauseSubsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the Lemon Test:
Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it:
1. has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose,
2. does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion
3. does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion
Parker v. Levy:
“This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. … The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech [in any form] that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command.  If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.” (Emphasis added) Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 1974
One of the reasons that was taken into consideration was that the bible was never included in the original POW/MIA table.
Col. John M. Devillier is the installation commander and his spokesman paraphrased AFI (Air Force Instruction) 1-1, Sections 2.11.and 2.12:
 “Our leaders and personnel are encouraged to accommodate the free exercise of religion and other personal beliefs, including freedom of expression unless it has an adverse impact on mission accomplishment,” he wrote. “Air Force leaders must carefully balance constitutional protections of individuals’ free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs with the constitutional separation of church and stateThey must ensure their actions cannot reasonably be construed to officially endorse, disapprove of, or extend preferential treatment to any faith or absence of faith.”
The bible on the table violates AFI 1-1, sections 2.11 and 2.12, the Constitution, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test and Parker v. Levy.
Plus, the Christian bible on the table does not represent all of the POW/MIA’s.
Here are more Founding Father quotes:
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
 
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788
“If I could 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 be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion” 

“God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.”
Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 1773
 
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said “But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.”
I hope this negates any false teachings you have heard and that the term “Separation of Church and State” can also be traced back to James Madison – the Father of our Constitution – and his original of intent.
Pastor Joan
MRFF Advisory Board Member

Dear (name withheld),
Rather than take the time to refute all the specious arguments you’ve presented here, let me point only to your last sentence and suggest that your argument is with the courts, not with the MRFF, which is promoting only the Constitution, the law and military regulations. I suggest you take your argument to them.

Mike Farrell

(MRFF Board of Advisors)

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

8 Comments

  1. Rev Bob

    Pastor Joan, you are an outright liar, and you know where liars go don’t you??? Somewhere it is nice and hot for all eternity where there are no beaches and no water to quinch your thirst.

    The writer here got it right, the original intent of Jefferson was so that the government would not stick their nose into religion, but the liberals have perverted Jefferson’s original intent.

  2. Connie

    Rev Bob – provide documentation or you are just spewing garbage from your ass.

    Pastor Joan does an amazing job of showing her work. How about you step up to the plate Rev Bob?

  3. Rev Bob

    Connie,
    Here you go Connie – Rev. 21:8 – But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers(abortionists), the sexually immoral(homosexuals, adulterers), sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

  4. Mark Sebree

    Rev Bob,

    So, in other words, you do not have actual facts to support your claim that Pastor Joan is a liar. All you have are opinions and your religious based empty threats. You claim that doctors who perform abortions are murderers is your opinion. Your claim that homosexuals are sinful is your opinion. Your opinion on what is and is not “sexually immoral” is your opinion. Your religious beliefs are just your opinion. Anything that you claim is “the Word of God” or “God’s Law” is nothing more than your opinion that you do not want questioned, and just will be questioned.

    And your opinions are not actually facts. And you do not have actual, objective facts to support your claims. Remove your beliefs from your claims, and your claims disappear since there is nothing objective to support them.

    That means that you are the one that appear to be the “outright liar” since you do not have anything to support your accusations except your unsupported, subjective opinion and your dislike of actual facts. And you should know by now that nobody is interested in your religious beliefs, and nobody is bound by your beliefs.

  5. J

    My comment on MRFF’s reply of “Plus, the Christian bible on the table does not represent all of the POW/MIA’s”. Let’s assume, for a moment, that everything that is in a POW table must represent ALL POW/MIA’s, and, if an object doesn’t meet this criteria, it must not be on the table. A typical table has fork and a plate. What about human hand? Some did not use fork but bare hand. Or chopstick? Where is a pair of chopstick? Or, insects? Because some POWs ate them while no food was available. My point is that there is not a single object which represents ALL. And, a POW table is a reminder of past POWs and of future possibility that a service member could become one. What better book than the sixty-six books of Christian bible to give hope to POWs! Why? Because its contents, not interpretations that are contrary to them, inspire virtues rather than evil and wrongdoing. Because they match the virtues that POWs are expected to uphold to. Because it represents the only religion that teaches Golden Rule rather than teaching Silver Rule or none at all. (GR= do to others what you would like them do to you; SR= don’t do anything that you would not want others do to you; no need= don’t have anything to do with people of religions other than your own religion)

  6. J

    Typo on “no need”. It should read “none”. Mindless machine auto correcting!

  7. J

    Connie, it is not just the ones who disapprove MRFF who calls others with nasty label, I see from your comment. Instead of asking for document, why don’t you go look for supporting documents that you may not like but nonetheless which are out there available to any who seeks it? And, “Pastor” Joan, why don’t you reply to the question regarding the “Islamists” chopping heads of Christians, and, I may add, same religion followers reducing the popularity of homosexuals in their country by punishing them with death penalty? Or, if you are a woman, what do you think of Muslim countries that severely restrict women’s religious and sexual freedom as well as who to marry or date?

  8. Tom

    Typical of MRFF to avoid answering

Leave a Reply

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

*