So, Jay had to go out of town eh?
Posted on November 2, 2005
hehehe….
I WILL EDIT COMMENTS ON THIS POST AS IT STRIKES MY FANCY…..FAIRLY WARNED BE YE SAYS I!!!!
I am in very good company with the cohorts I have here helping to take care of business while Jay is out of town, but since Jay IS out of town, I wish to say a few things to our regular readers, both the right thinking folks on our side AND the lefty sheep-shagging dolts.
If this hits too close to home then maybe some therapy is in order for you, and if you laugh about what you read here then good….it means you see the inanity inherent in the (lack of) arguments from the other side of the aisle.
We here at this site, and many of our readers, know that the ACLU is an organization that is bent on the destruction of the things that made this country great.
They twist parts of the First Amendment and ignore other parts of it, shoving a badly interpreted section down our throats by order of the court, because they know that they can win no other way. When a majority of people vote a certain way, and the ACLU goes to court because they don’t agree with the decision and get it tossed out under specious arguments we, (the majority) lose. There has never been a holy symbol that offended me by the mere sight of it, and simply seeing a holy symbol in or on a building I am in has never been considered by me to be somebody’s attempt to foist their religion on me.
The ACLU doesn’t even give the time of day to the Second Amendment. This is due to the fact that the ACLU realizes there is no greater threat to factions that would take over the U.S. than an armed populace. Do you really think that the ACLU believes that the Second Amenment is so secure that they can ignore it or not defend it? I don’t. Not for a second. The ACLU, along with the CPUSA, the UN, most liberals, most of Europe and certainly the radicals in the ME and elsewhere would love to see America disarmed.
I won’t even touch on the Tenth Amendment except to say the Roe vs. Wade should be a STATES RIGHT, and not even be touched by a federal court, and any time the ACLU steps into court to take away a state right in favor of giving that right over to the federal government we lose a bit more of our Freedom.
The rest of the first ten amendments I am not going to bother with at the moment, as that would almost certainly be a long article, but suffice it to say that the ACLU claims to defend civil liberties but is, in fact, ruining this country.
Now on to you a**hats that defend the ACLU and buy their line of feces about defending civil liberties.
You are all, everyone of you, idiots to the nth degree. Morons. Complete wastes of resources, and the fact that your mothers didn’t abort you stresses that life is not only NOT fair, but that God has a great sense of humor. You twits on the left side of things make me gag, and to think that I not only share common DNA with you windbags, but in many cases the same country gives me pause to consider how asinine you really are. You imbeciles on the left side of the aisle should stop your whining for a moment and realize that if the ideals that created this country weren’t defended for 200+ years that most of you would probably have been shot years ago.
In fact, most of you probably should be shot.
Out of a cannon.
Into a pool of sharks.
Sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads.
The simple fact that none of you seem to understand border security is enough to make me question your cognitive abilities, and when the case is made that people that sneak into the U.S should be protected on the same level as a citizen it simply shows your lack of common sense and your inability to understand the laws as they are written.
On to the Boyscouts. They are called “BOY“scouts for a reason. They are a private organization, and they do good work. If they don’t want gay scoutmasters then that is their right. You don’t see the girlscouts letting men be girlscout leaders do you? Maybe you do. I don’t know, as I am not into girlscouting, not having a daughter and all, but if I had a daughter I wouldn’t want a man running the troop.
I don’t want my son to be taught about gay sex in school. I don’t want my son to be taught about sex in school, except the mechanics and the health issues that are involved with sex. If the schools are going to mention gay sex then they should be up front about it and tell kids how utterly dangerous it is, and the long term effects of gay sex and the dangers associated with using one’s body in a way it was never intended to be used.
People that use drugs should not be allowed to raise kids. They actually shouldn’t be allowed to have them, but our goofy legislators have decided to license everything BUT procreation. Go figure.
Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and anyone that defends it as such is an idiot. The preponderance of evidence against Islam is overwhelmingly against it being a religion of peace. Teaching our kids in school to learn to be muslims, such as was done in a school recently, would not be tolerated by the ACLU if the teachers were teaching those kids how to be Christians. The school made the argument that they were teaching the history of Muslim nations, but one cannot teach the history of muslim nations without teaching the history of islam, as those two things are one and the same. I could teach a course on American history and rarely, if ever, touch on Christianty, but to teach the history of muslims nations one MUST teach the history of islam.
Nativity scenes. When someone can make an argument that viewing a nativity scene makes them question their beliefs or “offends” them THAT MAKES SENSE then, and only then, will I consider rethinking my position about Islam. That fact of the matter is that these nativity scenes have been a part of OUR CULTURE for many years, and unlike slavery, a harmless part. The secularization of America is real, is being pushed by the ACLU and other leftist groups, and is one of the current dangers to the continuation of America’s greatness. Take away our cultural heritage just because it offends some new group of immigants that refuse to assimilate anyway and we may as well just toss in the towel and call ourselves New Europe.
Now that I think about it America is kinda’ like the Borg from Star Trek. If you come here, assimilate.
Killing defenseless people is wrong. This includes unborn babies and the seriously ill and incapacitated. Murderers on death row should NOT get twenty years of appeals.
So to all of you out there that believe the ACLU does good work and are actually defending our civil liberties I award you the Golden Raspberry.
Most of you on the left side of the street wouldn’t be fit to lick my shoes clean, but in the interest of fairness I would at least give you the chance by kicking you in the teeth. You are all cowards, twits, and just for my old friend Pia, ninnies.
One last question.
How come most of the lefty’s I see at protests wear masks?
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Abortion, Activist Judges, Border Control/Homeland Security, Boyscouts, Christmas, Church And State, Communism, Euthanasia, History, Homosexual Agenda, Illegal Activities, Supreme Court, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
34 Responses to “So, Jay had to go out of town eh?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
If I could add an “amen” after near every paragraph I would.
And, I don’t think those are masks they’re wearing. I’ve seen quite a few moonbat, hippie types and they’re pretty scary on their own.
That is one of the best explanations I have heard on the subject.
That was utterly beautiful. Glorious. And spot on.
Where does one buy sharks with frickin’ laser beams? I mean Dr. Evil couldn’t get them, is there someplace online where I could order one, I live next door to some liberal a**holes, and would like to slip one in their pool.
And Kender has spoken. Quite well I might add.
LOL
I’d settle for some ill-tempered Sea Bass at this point.
BRAVO
The moron that originally wrote this comment left a wonderful little turd. Usually Gribbet won’t respond to anonymous posters, a tactic which I sometimes agree with.
But NOT today. You have no free speech rights on MY posts. I warned at the top of this post that I would edit comments as I see fit. So come back and whine about your free speech. Refute one thing I wrote in this post and I will debate you. Make random attacks and bite me doughboy.
Great job Kender, thanks.
Kender, you may call me as you like, but I may think differently of some things coming from a completely different background. I live in Austria, lived here all my life, and as you may know or not, Austria is basically a catholic country. In school we have Religion classes, and everyone gets classes of their own denomination as long as their denomination is offering them. So to come to the point: I am catholic too, and honestly a lot of people here don’t agree with lots of things the catholic church is doing. And honestly if you look back at christian history, is christianity a religion of peace? I think there is no such thing as a religion of peace or a religion of war, as any church is made up by people and people make decitions… this is just what I believe and no matter what it is always people who make something good or bad, by the decitions they make
Hi, my name is Marion and I can’t stop whining.
I tried to infiltrate the stoptheaclu group and got caught redhanded by Kender and now I am so damned mad that I refuse to shut up and go away.
Instead I am going to troll sites he is associated with a try to cause a stink becuase the bitter serum of justice he shoved down my throat made me gag like my girlfriends favorite toy.
Signed, Marion, Winner of The Whiny Bitch Award of October 2005, and proud contestant of the annual “I Can’t Seem To Shut My Mouth Howard Dean HEEEYYYAAAAAAHHHHHH Competition”.
(Ed: Go Away Marion)
Actually wejomerv, I love the US Constitution, the bill of rights, and what our country stands for.
The minority in America is using the court system to force their views down everybody else’s throat. The fact that you don’t understand that is beyond me.
I’d like to say to our friend from Austria that Christianity is most certainly a religion of peace. Catholiscism may have botched it up years ago, but that doesn’t mean anything. It has nothing to do with denominations. Sure Christians have had their screw-ups, and it was in direct violation of the Bible. That is how we know it was wrong. This does not apply to Islam, because the Koran explicitly tells its readers to kill those who will not be Muslim. In other words: when Christians do it its because they are bad Christians, when Muslims do it its because they are good Muslims. Now about the Constitution: Liberal lefties are trying to rewrite it. My right to worship my God when and where I please is protected by the freedom of religion amendment, much like liberals have their legal public sex acts in Oregon fall under the “freedom of expression.” As for the majority: the majority IS supposed to determine policy. That is why we live in a Republic. Why take a vote if the majority doesn’t win? What planet do you live on? Would you rather the minority dictate policy? Its not like the minority is not represented, so don’t even go there. That got old in the 60’s. There are no groups in America that do not have adequate representation. We live in a Republic and the majority decides. Deal with it, or move to one your tyrannical Islamic countries in the Middle East. Trust me, we’ll see you soon. Libs are just mad that they don’t have the majority, and lose most of the elections. Rather than stop and think that they might be wrong, they just lash out at the American public, call them idiots, and keep pushing their culture of hate, death, and bigotry.
I forgot to add a kudos to Kender, especially for the drug use bit. I’ve always wondered how libs who advocate that legalization of drugs would justify heroin use while raising children. Useless lib-government programs like Children and Youth snatch away kids from parents for so much as a time-out, so I’m curious to see how they’d handle that one. The left should be reduced to soilent green.
What separation of church and state? Sure, such a thing would protect the church from the state, not the other way around, and that is the exact hope Jefferson had when he wrote that statement. The ten commandments in a courtroom does nothing to violate anyone religious freedom. You are not asked to worship the vanity in the mall parking lot. Your kids are not ordered to say the pledge of allegiance and say “under God.” Separation of church and state, unless we read different Constitutions, and a different Bill of Rights, does not exist. No one is forced to worship Jesus under any of our policies in America. Look at Him, maybe. But not worship Him.
Again, since no one understood the first time: How is anyone forced to WORSHIP Jesus Christ in our country? No one is forced to go to church, they are not forced to say the pledge with the rest of the class, they are not forced to sit and read the 10 commandments when they go to court. The burden of proof is now on you to give me an example of how someone was forced, under our policies, to WORSHIP something or someone they don’t want to. Until then, quit whining.
The pesky third branch of government you dislike so much, the US Supreme Court, has interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean there exists a “wall of separation” of church and state.
The government must be neutral and not endorse a religion or religions. This really upsets you since you want Christians to get preferential treatment. And it is you who is whining and demanding to get preferential treatment.
It is sad for me to see how some of you hate the constitution and want to blindly ignore one branch of the US government.
Just curious, do you want churches and its working members to be taxed like any other organization?
The Ten Commandments can be posted in halls of courthouses if it is for historical purposes. The south wall of the Supreme Court has carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures.
Do you folks want the Ten Commandments posted for historical reasons?
Whose Ten Commandments would you use? If government officials put up the Ten Commandments, will they also post the Five Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Wiccan Rede and the Affirmations of Humanism?
I don’t hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the courts. I hate that some judges legislate from the courts, for example when they overturn election results in favor of illegal aliens not only are they going against the rule of law but the will of the people.
The minority are using the courts to further their agendas which they know that the majority of the citizens of the U.S. would never let pass the ballot box.
The establishment clause has been interpreted wrongly by activist judges. Roe vs Wade should never have gotten to SCOTUS, as abortion should be a state regulated industry.
The five rickety posts of islam can kiss my butt until the cows come home, as islam had no say in the founding of this country, neither did buddhists or wiccans….as for humanism thank you for affirming that humanism is indeed a religion. So is atheism.
But thank you for the civil debate, even if you seem to be lacking in cognitive reasoning ability.
We have, whether you appreciate it or like it or not, a JUDEO CHRISTIAN heritage that’s why our laws were based on the MOSAIC law rather than the code of the hammurabi–but the laws must be based on some such comprehensive system–
Unlike RUSSIA which actually has the “separation of church and state” jargon which you refer to so fervently–in their founding documents. They even made it illegal to teach religion to someone under the age of 18.
Which is surely the ACLU’s goal…wiping any references to our rich heritage from view.
Interestingly, that “separation of church and state” clause is not found in any of our founding documents. The establishment clause should be read in its entirety to have meaning:
At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation’s founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.
A nation at war, which continues to mourn its fallen heroes from 9-11, wrapping itself in the collective comfort of a renewed spirit of patriotism, was rudely awakened this morning to news that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
According to two members of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, the Pledge of Allegiance’s reference to one nation, “under God” - added by Act of Congress in 1954 - amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical…to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of those professions can be neutral with respect to religion,” wrote Judge Alfred T. Goodwin for the majority.
The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist, who opposed his daughter having to hear the Pledge recited in her elementary school class in Sacramento, California. Newdow, an emergency room doctor with a law degree, acted as his own lawyer in the case before the federal district court - which was thrown out - and in his appeal before the 9th Circuit.
The ruling, which runs counter to an earlier 7th Circuit Court decision upholding voluntary recitation of the Pledge in public schools, is certain to be appealed to either the full 9th Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. If allowed to stand by order of the full 9th Circuit, the decision would strike down the 1954 Act adding the words “under God” to the Pledge and bar all schoolchildren in the nine western states covered by the 9th Circuit from reciting the Pledge in class. If upheld by the Supreme Court, its ban applies nationwide.
The Supreme Court has a mixed track record on Establishment Clause cases. The Court traditionally has allowed so-called “ceremonial deism” - references to a generic higher power with no real specific religious meaning, such as “God save the United States and this honorable Court,” which begins every Supreme Court oral argument, or “In God We Trust,” our national motto, which is on all U.S. currency. This week, the Court upheld (by a 5-4 decision) in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Cleveland’s school voucher system which subsidizes students’ tuition at religious schools.
However, the High Court has barred students from holding religious invocations at graduations or conducting officially organized prayers before sporting events. The Court has also forbidden the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places outside the context of an historical exhibit displaying other antiquities or historical documents.
The public and political firestorm in response to the 9th Circuit decision has been fierce. Within hours of the decision, a bi-partisan crowd of Congressmen and women gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge and sing “God Bless America.” Later, a unanimous Senate passed a resolution (S.RES. 292) expressing support for the reference to God in the Pledge. The White House has asked the Justice Department to explore intervening. Major newspaper editorials across the political spectrum - including the Washington Post and New York Times — criticized the decision in this morning’s editions. A public opinion poll by MSNBC shows 76 percent of respondents believe referencing God in the Pledge does not endorse a specific religion. As for Newdow, he has gleefully played for the media the hundreds of angry calls and death threats received on his answering machine.
Whether the Court will seek to reestablish the original intent of the Establishment Clause is anyone’s guess. What is clear, based on the following examples, is that this is an issue that will be hard for the Court to avoid:
* Recently, public schools were barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown because the film depicted the erection of cross at the settlement.
* In Omaha, Nebraska, a ten year old boy was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law. On the other hand, in New York, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a kindergartner who was saying grace out loud before eating lunch. The school had forced her to stop because, in the school’s interpretation, it violated the separation of church and state.
* At Columbine High School, school officials told parents, teachers and students that they couldn’t paint messages with religious themes on commemorative tiles displayed in the High School, after they invited them to paint the tiles for healing. The parents won a lower court decision for their Free Expression rights but the school is appealing the case.
* A federal judge ruled that VMI’s traditional supper prayer — a “brief, nonsectarian, inclusive blessing,” — constitutes a coerced religious exercise.
* The town of Kensington, Maryland, gained national attention last Christmas for banning Santa from its annual Christmas tree lighting because two families out of a town of 1,700 people, complained over the lack of a Menorah. Rather than include a Menorah, Santa was uninvited.
* The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a murderer who killed a 70-year old woman with an ax, on the grounds that the prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury in his summation urging the death penalty.
In a country where the President of the United States and many members of Congress end their speeches with “God Bless America” and call for a National Day of Prayer, where citizens can exercise their First Amendment rights to display in a public setting a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, it is inconceivable our schoolchildren may not voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom, or hear an official prayer before a football game.
The so-called “wall” separating church and state has been systematically erected through a series of legal and political actions with no basis in the First Principles of our Founding Fathers.
Nice one Cao…thanks.
“when Christians do it its because they are bad Christians, when Muslims do it its because they are good Muslims.”
AWESOME. I’m going to have to remember that one!
And wejomerv, nice straw man argument. The law says that you CANNOT force people into one religion. Me, on my own, in a classroom, posting the 10 commandments isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. It’s not about proclaiming any religion, it’s about completely SUPPRESSING MY RIGHTS. Nothing more.
The ACLU actively hates Christianity because it is the enemy of communism. Communism and Christianity cannot co-exist.
Sorry I couldn’t get here sooner but yesterday was a long hard day full of dr. visits disapointment, meetings and phone screw ups. Stupid things supposed to fixed what it go out at 10:00 am again today
The so-called “wall” separating church and state has been systematically erected through a series of legal and political actions with no basis in the First Principles of our Founding Fathers.”
I am sure you read up on this topic and are aware that Jefferson wrote a letter:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
And Madison wrote:
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 (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
And you should know in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) the US Supreme Court ruled:
“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, 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.’”
can I post here or all my posts going to be filtered and not posted?
“the High Court has barred students from holding religious invocations at graduations or conducting officially organized prayers before sporting events. The Court has also forbidden the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places outside the context of an historical exhibit displaying other antiquities or historical documents.”
The Supreme Court intrepreted the US Constitution correctly.
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
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. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and 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 and State. 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
That was a very long way of saying that Jefferson thought that the wall of separation of church and state enables and enhances freedom of religious expression, which I agree with.
Thanks for supporting my argument.
Gee, not too awefully shabby, Kender. Only a coupla stumbling blocks I see, and I’ll take time only for one of them. When you wrote of the Boy Scouts: “If they don’t want gay scoutmasters then that is their right…” I was momentarily confused, but then I realized that you had bought the homosexual pejoration of the word “gay” and weren’t talking about “happy” scoutmasters but using the term in its nonsense usage of “gay=most often neurotic, sad, conflicted, deeply troubled homosexuals”.
Somehow that seems… wrong.
heh
(Yeh, I know quite a few people who are practicing homosexuals, and nearly to a person, they fit the description above. IOW, the antithesis of “gay”)
Cao said:
“It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general.”
As the Everson determined:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
That was a very long way of saying that Jefferson thought that the wall of separation was more like a ‘two-way’ mirror, with religion being on the two-way side of it.
David, I have quite a few gay friends, and they call themselves gay, not homosexual.
Wemo, show me one law the U.S. Government has passed that promoted one religion over another.
Much to the ACLU’s annoyance there is a God! and he is Just! This website proves it. The ACLU is an organization that deserves every bit of hate filled venom spued at it. I personally would like smash in the heads of some these neo-hippie c*** suckers myself. Marines (and members of the other branches of the US military) defend freedom, the ACLU tramples on it. As for the second ammendment and my right to bare arms, I dare one of those UN faggots to come for my 5.56 AR! I’ll be happy to show a blue helmet piece of s*** how well I know how shoot.