"To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good." --George Washington
This was a call in 1775 by the First Continental Congress when they called for "a day of publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer." Apparently, our Founders saw a national day of prayer as a fitting observance even if the present day naysayers do not.
The leftwing, their media cohorts and so called “progressives” made a big deal over the National Day of Prayer recently. It would seem that they believe that somehow a Day of Prayer for this Nation is a vile thing and according to the leftist and their “living constitution” totally illegal and in violation of the “Separate of Church and State”. Of course there is no “Separation of Church and State as the leftist wish to describe it. The real meaning as set forth by the founders was set forth in Amendment I of our Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, Congress may not mandate that a particular religion be nationalized, and others be prohibited. Regardless of this, the leftist courts even went so far as to declare the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." (U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb -- a 1979 Jimmy Carter nominee)
The fact that they leftist used the Separation of Church and State showed that they were only using the Day of Prayer to further their agenda of a Godless nation. It is easy for them to hide their agenda behind a small thing like the Day of Prayer rather than attacking Constitution directly.
To the leftist their agenda means, No God, in any form in any part of the government, which trickles down to schools, community events and even NASCAR pre-race events. Of course those who watch NASCAR know that they have ignored the leftist and offer a prayer for safety and even , in horrors to the leftist, evoke the name of Jesus Christ in many cases. Many of the leftist think racing is a waste of gasoline and a “horrid pollutant” to the atmosphere which absolutely without a doubt contributes to Global Warming. (now change to Climate Change since there is no real facts to back Global Warming)
The leftist , through the courts would amend our Constitution by judicial diktat in full disregard for the constitutional prescription for amendment in Article 5 of the Constitution. But then they think that the Constitution and Rule of Law is outdated and should be replaced by their “new living constitution” which can be interpreted in any manner on any matter as long as it suits their agenda.
In 1952, Congress established the National Day of Prayer as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Harry Truman. The NDP designation (36 U.S.C. § 119) calls for the nation "to turn to God in prayer and meditation."
The founding fathers had much to say concerning such a day:
James Madison followed this tradition, but wrote, "I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship."
The Founders were greatly and rightly suspect of any encroachment by government upon religious freedom, and codified that proscription in Amendment I of our Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."In other words, Congress may not mandate that a particular religion be nationalized, and others be prohibited.
So what does this tell us about the leftist.
One, it tells us that they know nothing or totally ignore history. Well, nothing real new since we already know that in their agenda revising history is a top priority. They do not wish that people be allowed to be educated on how this country was founded much less any knowledge of the thoughts of the founders and signers of the Constitution. If people become educated to these facts and understand them, then they will object to the leftist agenda and will recognize the back door attacks on the Constitution such as occurred with the objection to the Day of Prayer.
Second, it tells us that they wish to remove all references to God from the government and all other forums. We have seen this evidenced in the attacks on school prayer, prayers at football games, prayers at military functions and in the military itself, the wording on our currency, the posting of the Ten Commandments and more. The beginning of such attacks was when Madalyn Murray O'Hair was one of the litigants in the case of Murray vs. Curlett, which led the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1963 decision, to ban organized prayer in public schools. Anyone who has lived through this period can offer testimony that not only has our education system gone down hill but society in general. We the people allowed one woman to change the course of an entire nation.
Third it should tell us that we need to be very aware of all that the leftist are doing for just as they have attacked the Constitution through their attack on the National Day of Prayer, they will find subtle ways to re-write the greatest document of the free world and make it nothing more than a leftist manifesto to be used and interpreted as they wish. Afterwards all the freedoms that this nation’s people have fought, bled and died for will disappear. The enemy is a silent one and seeks to destroy and kill any vestige of what this great nation has stood for over the past 250 years.
The leftist agenda is dangerous if not evil in its intent. We know that evil loves darkness, secrecy, subterfuge, and lies. This is evidenced in the manner in which many of the bills before the Congress were not allowed true debate, were presented in a deceptive manner and were of course passed in the middle of the night (darkness if you will). We who understand the ways of the leftist need to constantly seek to educate those who are uninformed, totally ignorant and those who are just so gullible that they believe anything that they are told, especially if it has the words “free, your right, your entitlement” attached. If we fail, the leftist win and all the freedoms will be gone.
Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their 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? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
Men such as
**I wish to thank Mark Alexander for the quotes of the great men who understood what prayer meant to a nation.
7 comments:
Ticker, has anyone taken the court challenge to the next level? I doubt that this leftist judge's ruling will stand up on appeal.
Ora Pro Nobis
GM, here is what one of the news outlets reported:
Some members of Congress responded negatively to the ruling; House Republican leader John Boehner deemed it "troubling" and urged the Obama administration to appeal. "It violates both well-established legal precedent and the spirit of the principles on which our nation was founded," he said in a statement. A group called the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented more than 30 members of Congress in the lawsuit, also criticized the decision and vowed appeal.
"The decision undermines the values of religious freedom that America was founded upon," said House Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Lamar Smith. "What's next? Declaring the federal holiday for Christmas unconstitutional?"
Just when it will be appealed remains a question. Given that The American Center for Law and Justice
is involved I can be certain that there will be an appeal. It will of course take several years for it to wind it's way to the Supreme Court and by that time Obama may have enough leftist judges appointed that it will be upheld.
Pray for us indeed Anon. We are admonished to do so.
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2Chron 7:14)
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court's decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
Doug,
The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
And Doug,that is the real meaning of Separation of Church and State.
However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.
Further research shows that Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology.
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.'' ( Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of ''establishment'' was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, ''comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.''' (The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132-33 (1904).
Regardless of the wording the measure was ratified by the Congress and those in the States who voted.
Those who would deny the intent of this "Wall of Separation" should examine the writings of Madison and others rather than make their own interpretation.
Thank you for your civil contribution to the discussion, Feel free to join in anytime.
Hi Ticker. Great post. Great comments, too. Can't add too much to that. God bless your family and you. Let them TRY to sue me for that. :)
Post a Comment