Because grey matter does matter
The Establishment Clause - Separation of Church and State
Sylvia is an Albuquerque blogger, TEA Party activist, and hopefully now teacher to a group of numbskulls who won't shut up long enough screaming about "violations" of their "rights" (rights are only rights when you know where they came from - who granted them) to get a little education in a totally foreign subject they think they know ALL about.
http://sylviabokorcomments.blogspot.com/2011/05/establishment-claus...
Friday May 13, 2011
Sylvia Bokor Comments
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a query from that body. In the following Library of Congress transcript, Jefferson's spelling and punctuation have been retained as well as the bracketed material which ultimately he deleted before sending.
---------
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely betweeln 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 opinions, 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, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
----------
An anonymous writer claims that Jefferson's remarks echo those of Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, who wrote in 1644 of the need for "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." Whatever the case, Jefferson's expression of "a wall of separation between church and state" led to the shorthand phrase "Separation of church and state."
Although the phrase does not appear in our Constitution, the idea it embodies is a governing principle of our culture. The phrase represents the essentialized meaning of the opening passage of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." This is known as the Establishment Clause.
From the beginning of our nation, Americans recognized the principle of separation of church and state as a safeguard against religious intolerance and protection of one's right to choose to believe, or not. Our courts followed suit.
In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
In the Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, 8 decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote: "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
Another court stated that "A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws, which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches."
Because of the many different religions and the many different convictions of atheists and agnostics that comprise our American culture, the separation obf state and church assures that no one elected to office can lawfully impose his particular views as "the state religion." To further deflect such a danger, Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the kUnited States."
Today, however, some commentators question the validity of the separation of church and state, claiming "It's not in the Constitution; so, we can disregard it." But a brief look at man's history underscores the need for such a separation.
The first forms of governments among men---Sumer and Ancient Egypt (c. 5000 BCE)---were both centralized authorities, in which the ruler held both powers of king and priest. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, for instance, claimed they were the embodiment of "god-kings," or "priest-kings." They held both titles absolutely, sometimes appointing a priest class to perform various tasks, but always retaining the prerogative of supreme authority over men's beliefs and actions.
For millennium nothing changed---except in Ancient Athens. Pericles (c. 495 - 425 BCE), for example, was an elected ruler whose leadership did not usurp that of Athenian priests. But in all other nation-states around the world and throughout time, absolute authority over both secular and religions affairs remained exclusively in the hands of the ruler.
For instance, during the Roman Empire, (c. 31 BCE - c. 284/313 AD) emperors were treated as divinities and some declared themselves gods. During the Medieval period (c. 313 AD to c.1265 AD) the church dominated both secular and religious affairs. Even the great, enlightened Elizabeth I (1533-1603)---alone among monarchs finally to break with the Pope---while granting wider freedom to her subjects nonetheless retained absolute con'trol of her powers which included being the spiritual head of the Church of England.
Cromwell (1599-1658) justified his religious intolerance, the use of force, massacres and cruelty as necessary to hold together the body politic. Louis 14th (1638-1715) the "Sun King," imposed religious uniformity, persecuted the Huguenots and revoked the Edict of Nantes, which led to the exodus of many Protestant merchants and skilled artisans, accelerating economic decline. Napoleon crowned himself at his coronation (1804), thereby declaring that as emperor of France he was to be considered supreme ruler over both secular and religious affairs.
Similarly, the Emperors of Japan and China were considered direct descendents of the Gods, thus empowered as divine ruler on earth, supreme over all men's actions and beliefs. The sheiks, caliphs, and ayatollahs of Arabia, India and Asia were no different.
And so it went. With few exceptions, leaders claimed total authority over both religious and secular affairs---most clearly exemplified by "the divine right of kings" and "the infallibility of the Pope." The result was fines, imprisonment, torture and/or death levied on any that dared oppose the ruler's edicts and beliefs. The Inquisition was only one expression of such crimes against the mind of man. The slaughter and mayhem of the Crusades was another. The arbitrary beheading, dismemberment, disfigurement and proscribed suicides of dissenters or the disrespectful, was characteristic of the rulers of Africa, India and Asia.
Then came the United States of America, an extraordinary achievement that broke with all precedent and stunned the world with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, which are the fountainhead of the wealth that cascaded from the minds and efforts of free men.
The Declaration of Independence identified man's individual rights. The Bill of Rights---the first ten Amendments of the Constitution---secured those rights in specific actions. But it was the formulation of the Establishment Clause that addressed the difficult and complex issue of protecting man's convictions and beliefs without intruding upon his right to believe as he chose, or not. The governing principle of "a wall between church and state" was a stroke of genius that protected the American citizen from the deadly juggernaut of combined political and religious power.
The Founding Fathers gave us this nation, a child of the Enlightenment, Ancient Athens surely being our grandparent. As beneficiaries of such a gift, let us not allow our nation to fall to barbarians---either foreign or domestic---by ignoring the lessons of undivided absolute power over our lives and nation.
Labels: free-markets and restoration of individual rights, Separation of Church and State
posted by Sylvia Bokor @ 11:42 AM
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Colonel Robert F. Cunningham on -
An excellent treatise on the subject!
The same First Amendment that guarantees Freedom OF Religion also guarantees Freedom FROM Religion, specifically as dictated by any official or level of government.
The Second Amendment vests the responsibility in the Citizens to retain all the other provisions.
All we the People need do is demand without exception the recognition and enforcement of both – and the entire Constitution as it shall apply.
Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
Albuquerque
-
Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on -
Mr PickleMan..... Nice profile picture.....of you.......in front of....... That beautiful.......waterfall........that GOD created.....or did you........build that.....yourself......in your......backyard??
And you list........astronomy.......as one of........your hobbies........ How do you........look up.......into the heavens........and not see........GOD's handiwork ....... With every perfect orbit ........of every planet and particle ....and the perfect timing.....ohhhhhhh
-
Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on
-
Mr Colonel... Saw a bumper sticker today.....
The 2nd Amendment...... Makes all the others possible.
Lemmee see if I can find a graphic.
-
Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on
-
Tired iPad. Won't paste google results.... Mañana.... Zzzzzzzzz
-
Permalink Reply by Tea Bagger on -
Some of the most serious freedom of religion issues are in government advocacy of religion, prayer in the school led by government employees is positions of authority was just wrong. The problem though is government involvement in schools. The problem is not having religion in education. Unfortunately the founders did not anticipate the need for separation of school and state.
-
Permalink Reply by Colonel Robert F. Cunningham on
-
PickelIdiot,
"Ugliness?" Plenty to go around ... would you consider the 70-Plus Million MURDERED by Socialist Lord Mao - more than died in all of World War II a 'pretty' sight?
How about the 9-Million Jews alone MURDERED by Lenin?
The 11-Million Jews alone MURDERED by Stalin?
The 5+Million at least Jews alone MURDERED by Hitler? (Fascism is STILL socialism!)
None of which excuses the atrocities of the Roman Empire in becoming the Catholic Church nor their continuing atrocities yet today?; and none of which excuses the Moslem psychopaths blowing up themselves and innocents when and wherever they can get a charge of explosives close enough.
As far as I'm concerned the lot of you - and the bastards above - are headed for the deepest Firepits of Hell where all of you belong: And I damned well intend to assist with the delivery. Can do, have done, and will continue.
Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
Albuquerque
-
Permalink Reply by Sylvia Bokor on -
Posting my article on NMPolitics was done without my permission. I hope readers find it interesting and I appreciate the exposure, but CyberWhiz introduced my article with language inappropriate to serious discussion. He also included a false assertion. He wrote: "rights are only rights when you know where they came from - who granted them".
One's knowledge or ignorance of the origin of rights does not obliterate or alter man's rights. "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." They are derived from man's nature as a volitional conceptual being who must use his mind in order to survive. Rights are not "granted." They are inalienable and are the individual's by the fact of his extistence. Believing that rights are "granted " is falling into a dangerous trap that stems from the ancient fallacy that everything is the property of the ruler, which he grants as a privelge or withholds. In effect, this is the Left's view of the proper role of the state.
-
Permalink Reply by Sylvia Bokor on
-
Sylvia Bokor said:Posting my article on NMPolitics was done without my permission. I hope readers find it interesting and I appreciate the exposure, but CyberWhiz introduced my article with language inappropriate to serious discussion. He also included a false assertion. He wrote: "rights are only rights when you know where they came from - who granted them".
One's knowledge or ignorance of the origin of rights does not obliterate or alter man's rights. "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." They are derived from man's nature as a volitional conceptual being who must use his mind in order to survive. Rights are not "granted." They are inalienable and are the individual's by the fact of his extistence. Believing that rights are "granted " is falling into a dangerous trap that stems from the ancient fallacy that everything is the property of the ruler, which he grants as a privelge or withholds. In effect, this is the Left's view of the proper role of the state.
-
Permalink Reply by CyberWiz Beezer on
-
My rebuttal to Ms Bokor is in her personal mailbox. I will tear this discussion forum topic down if she wishes. I happen to think it has evoked significant discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Colonel Robert F. Cunningham on
-
PickelLooney,
"There is no hell." The hell there isn't!
http://www.theakurians.com/access.htm - is an excellent view that YOU haven't had the guts to go look at! It's NOT a PhotoShopped image and there are no LAYERS - everything is captured via psionics, a process we gleaned from the Masonic Lodge that no longer knows how to use it.
If the photo isn't sufficient, then try the FREE instructions at - http://www.theakurians.com - just follow the links. Even a minor level like you can go see for yourself - and safely return to tell the others!
While you're there, note history's greatest names, including Marx, Engels, Mao & Company, all burning in Perdition. They make a very pleasing sight to those of us who aren't vile simply because we can be.
Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
Albuquerque
-
Permalink Reply by Colonel Robert F. Cunningham on
-
PickelSnickel,
Then WHY don't you PROVE none of them exist? Your 'word' for the reputed fact is totally worthless. You are neither a studied expert on the subject nor of sufficient credibility to speak/teach any soul or Spirit.
In fact, like all communists (regardless of the several categories) you are a damned liar. You'll note I didn't say you were smart enough to know it!
Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
Albuquerque
-
Permalink Reply by Colonel Robert F. Cunningham on
-
Pickeloony,
There you go ... insisting everything is a 'belief' of some kind! The Akurians don't 'believe' anything, either we KNOW or we know we don't KNOW! Knowledge, idiot! Knowledge! Not 'belief' ... Knowledge! The kind that works the same way for everybody that applies it the same way.
For fools like you who are hung up in the DELUSION that 'belief' and Knowledge are the same thing, there's still a Flat Earth Society with a growing membership. I don't know if they're desperate enough yet to accept communists as members, but sooner or later there won't be anybody else stupid enough to join.
"My evidence?" If you weren't so stupid you'd know that "I" am my evidence! Each and every word, statement and claim - except some of the humor, of course - I make, published or not, is Testified to as absolute, irrevocable and consistently verifiable TRUTH by The Most High, Himself, and anybody can do it! Except communists who dare not make the attempt ... (demonisms, you know)
If the Testimony of The Most High, Himself, to you personally isn't sufficient, WHAT WOULD BE?
Colonel Robert F. Cunningham
Albuquerque
© 2012 Created by Max Barnett.
