SlantRight 2.0: Church-State

Showing posts with label Church-State. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

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. -First Amendment on ConstitutionCenter.org

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20^th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of "Separation of Church and State"’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!" (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

Genesis - The Temptation and the Fall

3 ¹Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

²The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. ³But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵“In fact, God knows that when^[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,^[b]knowing good and evil.” ⁶Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. ⁷Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

Sin’s Consequences

⁸Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,^[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. ⁹So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” [Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

1 John 2

¹⁵Do not love the world or the things that belong to^[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. ¹⁶For everything that belongs to^[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. ¹⁷And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

***********************

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

Gay Church Flag

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained "Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny."

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: "What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!"

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

Let's take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you'll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

The Bill is Bad

The final text of the bill states this: "This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state."

Is this really so bad? Yes.

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that's what "conversion therapy" ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

Second, what, exactly, is meant by "equitable treatment of all people of the state"? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender "rights," even when those "rights" infringed on the rights of others.

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let's dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

The Presuppositions

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here's the first: "The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming."

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 "WHEREAS" clauses!

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person's LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of "conversion therapy.")

And another states that "the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals."

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

That's why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, "CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS."

Specifically, the resolution "calls on religious leaders and others with 'moral influence' to affirm homosexuality and 'transgenderism' and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are 'ineffective, unethical and harmful.' As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote."

That's why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that "CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities."

Life and Hope

And that's why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, "For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. ... Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech."

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their -- and our -- religious liberties.

That's why it must be resisted.

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org - reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho - USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

DONATE to PNW

Sunday, June 23, 2019

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution

SCOTUS undoubtedly chapped the hide of Leftist Transformists everywhere with its 7-2 to keep the Bladensburg Peace Cross standing on taxpayer supported public land. Read Justin Smith’s thoughts.

JRH 6/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

************************

The Cross Does Not Offend the Constitution

A Landmark Victory for Religious Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/22/2019 11:22 PM

"The Constitution as written, not the personal views of judges, should guide how the American people express their religious faith in the public square." ~ Emilie Kao, Director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society

A fine blow was struck for religious freedom, when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 7 to 2 landmark victory in the case of the American Legion v. the American Humanist Organization, on June 20th 2019, as the majority opinion determined that the Peace Cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, just outside of D.C., does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The forty foot tall Peace Cross commemorating forty-nine of Prince George's County men who died fighting in WWI can now remain on public land, property of the State of Maryland.

The American Humanist Organization originally filed suit in 2012, and modified the suit in 2014; they forged ahead to force the removal of the Peace Cross, suing the Park and Planning Commission and the American Legion, that originally paid for its erection, in part. The AHO alleged that the presence of the memorial on public land amounted to a government establishment of religion.

In the beautiful shape of the Cross, the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial was erected between 1919 and 1925, by Gold Star Mothers and a local American Legion post. The Cross design was provided by the Gold Star Mothers in 1919 to recall the cross-shaped grave markers standing over the thousands of American graves on the Western Front of WWI, with one mother actually referring to this memorial as her son's "grave stone".

This surely had to be at the front of the majority's mind, in making their decision, since particularly troubled by opposition's Taliban-style proposal of chopping off the arms of the Cross, Justice Samuel Alito offered the following in the decision: "Many memorials for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. make reference to his faith. These monuments honor men and women who have played an important role in the history of our country, and where religious symbols are included in monuments, their presence acknowledges the centrality of faith to those whose lives are commemorated."

John Seaburn is the name of one of the soldier's whose name is memorialized on the plaque at the base of the Peace Cross, having bravely marched off to join the Army in an all African American unit. His great-niece, Alvergia Guyton is one of the few people left with a personal connection to the Cross, stating "It's been there all my life; it's history", and on June 20th seven Justices in America's Supreme Court agreed with her, leaving John Seaburn's sacrifice and those sacrifices of Prince George's Native Sons intact and unsullied.

This case did little to untangle the confusion created by past Establishment Clause decisions, since two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saw it as a clear violation, and those seven who did not, Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all offered opinions that didn't offer a fix to the underlying problem and the many different past interpretations regarding the intent of the Constitution. So, these sort of issues will continue to manifest themselves, and if anything, this case reveals the importance of Justices who view the Constitution through the prism of Original Intent.

And even though "separation of Church and State" is a fallacy and a gross misinterpretation of a passage written to the Danbury Baptist Church by Thomas Jefferson, the AHO vowed to fight on to "bolster the First Amendment" and to "(redouble their) works to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state, brick by brick."

In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg stated: "Soldiers of all faiths 'are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross ... ' By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion."

America was founded as a Christian nation, and that's just a historical fact and a matter of record, but it was founded to also be tolerant of all other religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers' vision was a country that facilitated all Americans' free expression of faith even if in the public square, and all across the span of our nation's history, Americans have used religious symbols to commemorate a variety of meaningful events, whether one speaks of holidays, the Courts and sworn oaths or prayer in State legislatures.

[Blog Editor: Many Leftists, Secular Humanists, Separation of Church-State Ideologues and probably other Anti-Christian groups would strongly disagree with Justin’s belief, “America was founded as a Christian nation”. To justify their misguided Anti-Christian attitude you will read the Left-version of cherry picking that actually twist facts. The Left will accuse Christians of cherry picking as well, but the difference Leftist cherry picking often are quoting out of context or using a historical person who represented an absolute minority opinion as in the rare atheist or French-influenced Deist (AND there is quite a difference between a French Deist and an American Christian Deist). Here are some posts demonstrating America’s Christian heritage which trust is not exhaustive:

o The Judeo-Christian Values of America; By Ronald R. Cherry; American Thinker; 9/15/07

o Is America a Christian Nation? By David Barton; WallBuilders.com; 2/14/17

o Tocqueville on Christianity and American Democracy; Carson Holloway; The Heritage Foundation; 3/7/16

o Does American Deism Negate a Christian Heritage? By John R. Houk; SlantRight 2.0; 3/29/15]

President Trump's appointment to the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rightfully suggested that the Court shouldn't have heard the case, because the plaintiffs could show no concrete injury other than they were "offended" by seeing it as they pass it. Gorsuch wrote: "This 'offended observer' theory of standing has no basis in law ... What matters ... to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn't its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution's meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation's traditions is permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago."

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the Majority Opinion for the Court, noted: "(The Peace Cross) has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of 'a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions ... The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim. The Cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent ... For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution."

Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty law firm and a defender of religious freedom, who defended the case, exclaimed: "This is a landmark victory for religious freedom. The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over."

Forever memorialized, these men were regular, ordinary Americans, doctors, farmers and laborers, educators, some in their prime and one in his fifties -- already wounded -- who probably shouldn't have been on the front lines. They all had one thing in common. They never came home and they were much loved and sorely missed by those who waited for their return. And one-hundred years after WWI, Americans are still fighting for the concrete ideas these fine American patriots died to give us, the foundation of the First Amendment and its manifested inherent Freedom.

Many descendants of these fine men have lived with the Peace Cross all their lives, as it has stood gracing the skyline one mile from D.C. for nearly a century, and they are shocked to their very core that any American would challenge its right to exist, regardless of its placement on public land. Their memories include the story of the mothers who slowly pulled the American Flag from the base of the Cross ninety-four years ago to reveal the names of forty-nine soldiers, American heroes, who made the final sacrifice of their lives in World War I. It's survived all this time, through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and 9/11 and Enduring Freedom, and now, Thanks to God and the Supreme Court, it has survived its most dire threat and a terrible battle with radical, extreme atheists intent and determined to destroy this much respected and greatly loved memorial simply because it was in the shape of the Cross.

By Justin O. Smith

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the /editor.

Justin O. Smith

Friday, September 11, 2015

A Heaven or Hell Decision

Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’

Intro by John R. Houk

Author: Justin O. Smith

Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country. Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. … READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton Institute - Power Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.

JRH 9/11/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

***********************

A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision." - Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one's beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis "arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between "one man and one woman"; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren't the courts "adopting" their "policy" and agenda when they magically create "law" based on mythical "rights" that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of "separation of church and state." Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court's excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute "separation of church and state" and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year's Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the 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 rights in opposition to his social duties."

If anyone's First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis's rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: "Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?"

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what "law" did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is "the law" after Justice Kennedy "found" this imaginary "right" to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states' rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis's lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning's abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with "Rowan County," thus satisfying "the law"; however, Mat Staver's comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these "marriage" licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else's authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of "marriage" and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams - a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner - a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that "natural marriage cannot be redefined by government," and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: "When you're elected you don't check your beliefs at the door. If you're a true believer, you can't separate that from who you are." Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers' beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one's freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional "laws", that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Religion and the Constitution

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

John R. Houk

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

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. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

New Hampshire became the required 9^th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

…

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment's prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." …

…

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson's Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders--a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

On New Year's Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a "fan" letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the "chief Magistracy in the United States." They celebrated Jefferson's zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him "as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists' aspirations for religious liberty:

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^.[3]

…

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

…

The Wall That Black Built

The phrase "wall of separation" entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured."[⁶] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson's letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson's language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: "In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State'.... That wall," the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, "must be kept high and impregnable. …

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court's ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia's disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that "separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle," attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the "wall of separation" image. …

The trope's current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson's figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[⁹] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

…

Jefferson's wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels--federal, state, and local.

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

¹⁸“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

DONATE