Commandments Struck Down

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen!

I have an eating disorder when it comes to feasting on the word. A true glutton as I cannot get enough. Praise God in the highest for His wonderful mercies.


1Ch 29:11  Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

[nChrist]

Amen Pastor Roger!

God's banquet table is laid out before us, and there is never any reason for us to leave hungry. There are people in other countries who are killed or persecuted for trying to eat a morsel from God's Word. Knowing this, I must give thanks every time I partake and pray for those who are hungry. May God give them strength and peace.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Thessalonians 2:2-4  But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention. For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.

[JimmySwift]

Hi folks,


This is a pretty sticky Christian issue for me.  I don't think I'd go as far as to say that the supreme court means nothing to me, as I think they are an integral part of our political system, and have done great things to advance the nation.  

I also agree, however, the members of organizations such as the ACLU often overstep their mandated bounds, and create some relatively frivilous law-suits, for lack of any other important cause.

In the end, I think that my views on the issue have to come down to simple question of religious rights.  Have my rights been comprimised by this decision?  probably not.  I still maintain my own right to beleive what I want, and I maintain the right to express that beleif.  I think that is what the founding fathers had intended to protect.  For better or worse, the United States was not founded to be a theocracy.  In fact, it was founded on principles of separating church and state, in order to protect the inalienable rights of people who have contrasting beleifs.  Unfortunately, this means that some of the trappings of Christianity ought not neccesarily apear to be a determining factor in legal proceedings.  I for one, know that if I was being convicted in a foreign land, I would want my trial to be based on the rule of law, as opposed to religious values.

But, I do entirely understand the contenciousness of this issue.  It's a big one for both sides of the Christian coin.

cheers,

Jimmy

[Reba]

Hi folks,


This is a pretty sticky Christian issue for me.  I don't think I'd go as far as to say that the supreme court means nothing to me, as I think they are an integral part of our political system, and have done great things to advance the nation.  

I also agree, however, the members of organizations such as the ACLU often overstep their mandated bounds, and create some relatively frivilous law-suits, for lack of any other important cause.

In the end, I think that my views on the issue have to come down to simple question of religious rights.  Have my rights been comprimised by this decision?  probably not.  I still maintain my own right to beleive what I want, and I maintain the right to express that beleif.  I think that is what the founding fathers had intended to protect.  For better or worse, the United States was not founded to be a theocracy.  In fact, it was founded on principles of separating church and state, in order to protect the inalienable rights of people who have contrasting beleifs.  Unfortunately, this means that some of the trappings of Christianity ought not neccesarily apear to be a determining factor in legal proceedings.  I for one, know that if I was being convicted in a foreign land, I would want my trial to be based on the rule of law, as opposed to religious values.

But, I do entirely understand the contenciousness of this issue.  It's a big one for both sides of the Christian coin.

cheers,

Jimmy

What has it done to advance this nation?

Who  has given a mandated to the ACLU?

"Separation of church and state" is not found in any of our documents. The courts have progressively diminished, from the original intent "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.  

[JimmySwift]

Sister Reba,

thanks for your reply.  I have a few answers for your questions. (Although I suspect they may have been more opinion than question)

The ACLU, (of which I am NOT a member) is given its mandate from its membership.  It's a lobby group trying to pressure the government to make changes to curent domestic and foreign policy, that its members agree need redressign.  That's what lobby groups do.  It has the same mandate, or the same right to push its cause, as the powerful right-wing christian (of which I am NOT a member) does.

As far as your claim that the separation of church and state does not exist in any of our governmental documents, I have included for you two clippings.  The first, is part of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a baptist minister.  The minister was angry that his home state of Conn. did not grant him some of the rights that he felt his religion demanded as inalienable.  He wanted Jefferson, to pass national laws, that would enshrine these differing religious rights, as constitutional.  This is the integral part of Jefferson's reply:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between 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, 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."

It is the verbiage of this letter that echo's in the first amendment statement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I don't think you have to take a liberal reading to see that according to the constitution of the United States, writen by people like Jefferson, there is, in fact a vital separation between church and state.  the line: "no law respecting the establishment of religion," essentially means that the U.S. government is to stay out of the religious matters of the nation.

"religion is a matter that lies solely between a man and his god."

Thanks Thomas, you've proven my point well.

cheers,

Jimmy

[Reba]

The ACLU, (of which I am NOT a member) is given its mandate from its membership.  It's a lobby group trying to pressure the government to make changes to curent domestic and foreign policy, that its members agree need redressign.  That's what lobby groups do.  It has the same mandate, or the same right to push its cause, as the powerful right-wing christian (of which I am NOT a member) does.

Thank you for your reply.... The use of the word mandate has been so over used it has become a word with no real value. In our langauge today mandate somehow brings to mind something of the majority view of the general population. You have used it correctly in your explanation.

"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 between 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. 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.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802"

When i read the whole of Jeffersons letter it takes on a differnt look, then the shortened version. Yes he uses the term 'separation of church and state'. (this letter is not gererally  what a one would call 'one of our documents')  I notice he includes the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof equal with the establishment clause for his wall. Over the last 50 years or so the establishment clause has been used to control Christianity. Again in reading the whole of Jeffersons letter it is plane to see he did not wish the government to control religion.



 

[JimmySwift]

Hi Reba,

Absolutely!  Jefferson did not want anyone interfeering with the free practice and expression of religion.  Thats what the whole first amendment is all about.

However, I don't think this particular supreme court ruling has controled Christianity in any way.  I am still as free today to attend my chruch, and express my faith as I was 50 years ago.  The constitution of the United States was writen to keep politics and religion separate, so that the Government can be seen to have legitimacy for all of the governed.  If it were to become utterly ruled by one religious faction or another, and be run based on their religious teacheings (a theocracy) then it would lose relevance with other non-beleiving members of the nation.

It is this fundamental precept that has been upheld, and I don't see how that really harms my rights as a citizen.  In fact, I feel safer because of it.  I know that someone is looking out for my freedom of religion.

thanks,

Jimmy

[ollie]

The supreme court was put into place to interpret law, not make law or enforce law.

If one reads the constitution of the United States one can easily see they misinterpret. Even someone not trained in legal expertise. It is a gross adulteration of what the writers of the constitution intended.

The supreme court abuses their constutional authority and the
lawmakers, (congress), our voice in government allow it. Are we voicing our thoughts to our representatives loud and clear. If so and they do not listen I say vote em all out. Therein is our power. Start fresh.

I believe firmly in the providential working of God in forming America to bring folks back to His basic gospel in Jesus Christ which was being censored somewhat by the existing governments and churches of Europe. Now the devil has found a way to work through an adulteration of our laws to making the basic gospel a censor issue again, only in the land of the free this time. Is there a new world to escape to this time?
The new world lies in our power to vote them out and it should be done before they adulterate the laws on voting and we are moved to "dumping tea in the harber" again..

ollie

[JimmySwift]

Hi Ollie,

Great post!  You certainly defend your view with a great deal of fervour.  I did however, want to make a quick point.

In your message, you mentioned that the current supreme court decisions are a "gross adulteration" of what the initial writers had intended.  I just wanted to direct you to the clipping of the Thomas Jefferson letter that is mentioned in one of my last posts. As I'm sure you are aware, Jefferson was a major, if not the major author of both the U.S. constitution and the declaration of independance, as such his writings, I feel would give today's reader a pretty good idea of what the original writers had intended.  Seeing as he made it quite clear in that letter that the U.S. government should play no role in the religion of the governed, I think the court's ruling on that matter is quite consistent with those original aims.

As always, I look forward to your take on the situation

cheers,

Jimmy

[Reba]

The supreme court was put into place to interpret law, not make law or enforce law.

If one reads the constitution of the United States one can easily see they misinterpret. Even someone not trained in legal expertise. It is a gross adulteration of what the writers of the constitution intended.

The supreme court abuses their constutional authority and the
lawmakers, (congress), our voice in government allow it. Are we voicing our thoughts to our representatives loud and clear. If so and they do not listen I say vote em all out. Therein is our power. Start fresh.

I believe firmly in the providential working of God in forming America to bring folks back to His basic gospel in Jesus Christ which was being censored somewhat by the existing governments and churches of Europe. Now the devil has found a way to work through an adulteration of our laws to making the basic gospel a censor issue again, only in the land of the free this time. Is there a new world to escape to this time?
The new world lies in our power to vote them out and it should be done before they adulterate the laws on voting and we are moved to "dumping tea in the harber" again..

ollie

Amen Ollie,

I find it odd that when the courts prohibit the free exercise thereof folks dont get that their freedoms are being attacked. The two clauses need to be worked with equal weight.

Nice to see ya again...

[nChrist]

Hello JimmySwift,

In terms of intentions, I think that Thomas Jefferson would make an excellent example. While serving as President, he was also in charge of public schools in Washington. He placed the Holy Bible and a Hymnal in the schools as primary reading texts during his tenure. The letter from Thomas Jefferson doesn't come close to meaning what the left wants it to. It was simply used as part of a really BIG LIE pushed on the American people. The facts and evidence about this BIG LIE are overwhelming.

The current distortion of the so-called "Separation of Church and State" is at best a fabrication by the liberal left in America. Most of those folks don't like to talk about the real and lengthy history of Christian America. In fact, they've tried pretty hard to get the real history of America removed from texts used by schools.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Galatians 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

[Reba]

   Saddly  i agree Mr. Bepster.

[JudgeNot]

There was once a man whose favorite color was blue.  Let’s call him TJ.  TJ loved blue – nearly everything he had was blue.  Once, when out and about, TJ was asked what he thought of a particular bridge, which just so happened to be painted blue.  “I hate it,” TJ said.  Well, there was, perchance, another set of ears listening to this exchange.  This pair of ears only heard part of the exchange, and knew nothing else of TJ, but this person went out among the masses proclaiming “TJ hates blue!”  All those who had an agenda against the color blue now used TJ against the lovers of blue – even though TJ himself loved the color.  

It’s called revisionist history, and is a false teaching.

I’ve said it before – Satan will stop at nothing to rid man of GOD, using whatever tools necessary.  Revisionist history is one of his most affective tools.  Satan’s agenda is to wipe GOD from the minds of the young – by making it ‘illegal’ to hear the Truth in everyday life.  Satan is hoping beyond hope that, after generations, people will eventually forget who Jesus Christ is.  

Satan can barf and roll in it.  I won’t give up the fight against him.  Just as the false phrase ‘separation of church and state’ has become ‘popular’, so have many of Satan’s other false truths.  I, for one, will not bend or bow to these ‘historian’s’ mandates.  Truth can not be rewritten, only hidden for a short period of time.

(Yep – I ALSO believe in the 2nd Amendment AS WRITTEN.  Why, when the right to bear arms is for the people’s protection against tyrannical government, would any one EVER think that this protection was granted to a militia (National Guard) which is a part of the very government we are protecting ourselves from?  Ludicrous!  Revisionist history is that history which has been rewritten to take control from the masses and put that control right into Satan’s lap.)  

Okay – I’m done ranting…    

Dear Jesus – may Your Word continue to reign supreme, and be THE recognizable beacon shining from within Satan’s fogbank.  Whoa to the man who attempts to extinguish Your beacon of Truth.  
Amen.

[Soldier4Christ]

Since we are on the topic of Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptist Association let us look at the entire letter.  It is a preliminary draft of this letter. The portion that is italicised and in parathensis was omitted from the final draft because he did not want to "offend" his fellow party. It gives a more accurate account of what his intentions were in regards to the "wall of seperation".

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 & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between 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, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national 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 and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[Soldier4Christ]

The supreme court abuses their constutional authority and the lawmakers, (congress), our voice in government allow it.

Thomas Jefferson also had a lot to say on this matter. He saw a problem with the Judicary system as early as 1820.


A subtle corps of sappers and miners

----- To T. Ritchie, 1820

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet . . . We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then . . . I will say, that "against this every man should raise his voice," and more, should uplift his arm . . .

Having found, from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion . . . An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous„and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning . . .

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.


A usurping judiciary will become a despotism

----- To Jarvis, 1820

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

If the Federal judiciary is not checked, it will destroy democracy.

----- To C. Hammond, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armor, offer myself its champion), that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government or another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same workshop; made of the same materials, and by the same hand. If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true historians.

Sinister procedure of the Supreme Court

----- To Pleasants, 1821

Another most condemnable practice of the Supreme Court to be corrected is that of cooking up a decision in caucus and delivering it by one of their members as the opinion of the court, without the possibility of our knowing how many, who, and for what reasons each member concurred. This completely defeats the possibility of impeachment by smothering evidence. A regard for character in each being now the only hold we can have of them, we should hold fast to it. They would, were they to give their opinions seriatim and publicly, endeavor to justify themselves to the world by explaining the reasons which led to their opinion.

To curb Federal judges, they should be appointed every six years

----- To Pleasants, 1821

[For the] difficult task in curbing the Judiciary in their enterprises on the Constitution . . . the best [remedy] I can devise would be to give future ommissions to judges for six years [the Senatorial term] with a re-appointmentability by the president with the approbation of both houses. If this would not be independence enough, I know not what would be . . .

The Judiciary perversions of the Constitution will forever be protected under the pretext of errors of judgment, which by principle are exempt from punishment. Impeachment therefore is a bugbear which they fear not at all. But they would be under some awe of the canvas of their conduct which would be open to both houses regularly every sixth year. It is a misnomer to call a government republican, in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation.

----- To W. T. Barry, 1822

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reformation and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied. Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipose between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative Houses. That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.