explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Deception of the "Separation of Church and State."

Bigby LupoJan 17, 2020, 2:48:48 AM

     There are many today who believe that the First Amendment when interpreted properly protects the people from the influence of religion in politics, and that religion has no place in government or education. That in the First Amendment there is a wall of separation between church and state. I would contend that the original sources do not support this. Proponents of the strict interpretation we have today cite one or two contradictory statements from a few individuals but disregard the other 250 framers were religion friendly.


     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Proposed 9/25/1789 Ratified 12/15/1791


     There are basically two schools of thought in law today. The naturalist view believes that our rights are given by God and cannot be taken away by any entity and the positivist view believes that government grants the people their rights and the government can take them away at its convenience. 

In this response I will show: 

  1. The Courts are relying on a private letter of Jefferson's, not a public policy statement. 
  2. The Courts are relying on opinion expressed by an individual who did not participate in the framing of the First Amendment. (Jefferson was in France at the time.)
  3. The Courts are largely ignoring the 90 men who actually framed the Amendment. 

     Everson v Board of Education was the first to apply this Establishment Clause of the First Amendment through the 14th Amendment, effectively limiting the States not just on racial civil rights issues, but on numerous items contained within the Bill of Rights. Applied to the First Amendment, the Court created a mechanism whereby for the first time, it could intervene in religious practices at all levels: national, state and local.

     Justice Hugo Black, one time member of the Ku Klux Klan, who wrote for the majority stated:" 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."

     He uses an excerpt from a correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association to make his argument. In their letter the Danbury's suck up to Jefferson and try to get his support to eliminate the establishment clause in their State. In response Jefferson says nice things to make it sounds as if he sympathizes but in the end does nothing for them. It was not an official document neither was it a strong statement of conviction. It was only used to butter up his constituents. Reading these two correspondence in their entirety will reveal just that. Point of fact; the Danbury's wanted to do away with the Establishment Clause so they could create a State religion, not to remove religion. 


     Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that Thomas Jefferson had no problem mixing religion and politics is during his Presidential administration and through the next (1801-1817) both Jefferson and Madison attended church services held within the House of Representatives. Under Jefferson, the Church was the State.

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association 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 Religious Clauses of the First Amendment."- Chief Justice William Rehnquist Wallace v Jaffre 

 According to some it is unconstitutional to: 

  • Pray aloud over a school lunch. Congress prays before every session since 1774.
  • To pray in the name of Jesus. Yet Jefferson signed his correspondence in the year of our Lord Christ 
  • For a kindergarten student to recite aloud "God is great. God is good, let us thank him for our food."

     Yet the Founders who drafted the 1783 Peace Treaty with Great Britain to end the War for Independence began it with "In the name of the most holy undivided trinity."

  • For a student to ask for the teacher to answer whose birthday is being celebrated at Christmas.

     Yet George Washington in his recommendation to the Delaware Indian Chiefs concerning the education of their sons, offered: 

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life and above all the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

  •  For two Middle School students to bring their Bibles to class, their teacher confiscated the Bibles, proclaimed: "This is garbage," and threw them into the trash can.

     Yet Fisher Ames, the man most responsible for the wording of the First Amendment, was concerned about other school books gaining more prominence than the Bible and asked:

 "Why then, if these new books must be retained - as they will be - should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?" 

  •  For a graduation ceremony to contain an opening or closing prayer.

     Yet President George Washington said at his inauguration: "It would be particularly improper to omit in this official act my fervent supplication [prayer] to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations and whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that His benediction [blessing] may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States." 

     If we are truly going to get at the heart of what the First Amendment was intended to be we would be wise to take advice from the man himself:


 "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was part." Thomas Jefferson to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson 


     Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel by applying modern precepts to our founding age, let us instead try to recapture the spirit of that time and interpret it through their eyes.

     Here are some of the first actions of the First Federal Congress who framed the First Amendment. 

  • Established Congressional Chaplains. 
  • Reenacted the Northwest Ordinance. 

"Religion morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Article III (When a territory applied for admission into the US Congress drafted an enabling act that addresses the criteria by with a territory could achieve Statehood. They had to agree to this to become a State) 

  • Approved a Thanksgiving Proclamation. 

     Proposed by Alias Boudinot that the people of the U.S had a day where they could thank God for the First Amendment. This happened the very day after approving the First Amendment.


     So we can see that by the very first actions of the first congress who framed the First Amendment that they were very religion friendly and in fact held the Christian religion in the highest regard. It would be contradictory to say that these would want religion removed from government when it is obvious they were strong proponents of its use. 


"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Ethan Allen 


     Today if you were to describe someone who wanted all religion removed from government as 'unpatriotic' that statement would be near tantamount to slander. Some that say to incorporate any religion, but especially Christianity, into a government setting would be the same as enslaving us to some hypothetical unionized religious cult. Some say politicians shouldn't consider religion when creating legislation, that we can be moral enough on our own judgement and don't need some ancient book clouding up our thinking.


     At least when considering the place of religion in government and by proxy what the framers of the First Amendment were trying to accomplish, I prefer to take my notes from one of the Framers himself:


"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmist props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government...Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" - President George Washington from his Farewell Address. 

 James Madison himself helped write the draft for his speech.

     The myth of the Separation of Church and State is here to stay, unfortunately. It has been so ingrained into the generations that they refuse to question its veracity even though there is no evidence for it. They willingly believe the distortion presented by a known racist with a questionable background. This is not a new tactic. One of the first ways cultural dissemination occurs is for the invading ideology to demonize former heroes and set up their own examples as standards. They will remove the host countries holidays and instill their own. It is happening right before our eyes and no one seems to care.


     I hope this rebuttal will help George Washington patriots better defend the ideals set by our forefathers and not fall for the deception of the "Separation of Church and State." There is an all-out assault on American culture and though we may have lost much to complacency already we do not have to surrender our will to the thought police or be ridiculed in the truth.


     In closing I would like to include this excerpt from another letter that some would try to use to defend the Separation Clause, and is from where Jefferson borrowed the phrase .

"First the faithful labors of many Witnesses of Jesus Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the Antitype, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will ever please to restore his Garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the Wilderness of the world, and added unto His Church or Garden." - Roger Williams, "Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered


     In this letter Williams proposes that God destroyed the wall between the garden (church) and the wilderness (world) because those in the garden tried to incorporate the wilderness into the garden with the wall being left destroyed until this day. He then suggests if paradise is ever to be restored that the garden must be walled from the wilderness that those added to the garden (church) would be protected from the wilderness (world).

     The "wall of seperation" is to protect the garden from the wilderness, not the wilderness from the garden.