Church-State Relations: Historical Truth vs Secularist Spin
In law school prospective lawyers are taught to represent their clients zealously and effectively.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If the law is on your side, pound the law.
In neither is on your side, pound the table.
Secular extremists slyly but successfully turned government away from supporting religion generally, by misrepresenting the law, distorting the facts, posing as victims rather than victimizers, and pounding the table.
In 1947, the United States Supreme Court ruled that neither the federal government nor any state government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
In so ruling as to aiding all religions, the Court substituted its extreme secularist view for the views of those who founded the United States, wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and adopted the First Amendment.
And, in so ruling, the Court misused a much-quoted letter in which Thomas Jefferson described the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between church and state.”
The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution all recognize God.
The Articles and the Constitution were dated “in the year of our Lord.”
Meaning Jesus Christ.
The First Amendment was not intended to prohibit government from acknowledging God or supporting religion generally.
Its proscription forbids Congress from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Its protection extends to "the free exercise of religion."
Only coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a particular faith or prohibit the free exercise of any faith or force people to violate their consciences are unconstitutional.
And Jefferson's wall is supposed to keep government from interfering with that religious expression, not to ban religious expression from the public square.
But the United States Supreme Court, while professing neutrality as to religion, actually opted for secularism, to its own benefit.
The United States is supposed to be "one Nation, under God," as The Pledge of Allegiance states, but the United States Supreme Court declined to rule so on the merits and instead rejected professed atheist Michael Newdow's argument on a procedural ground, lack of standing.
St. Paul, Minnesota's Archishop, John Ireland, at a convention of the National education Association held in St. Paul in 1890, foreshadowed the triumph of secular extremism while asserting that "the state should, for the sake of its people and its own sake, permit and facilitate the teaching of religion by the church."
Archbishop Ireland warned Protestants and Catholics to work together against irreligion:
"Believe me, my Protestant fellow citizens, I am absolutely sincere when I declare that I speak for the weal of Protestantism as well as that of Catholicism. I am a Catholic, of course, to the tiniest fiber of my heart, unflinching and uncompromising in my faith. But God forbid that I should desire to see in America the ground which Protestantism now occupies swept by the devastating blast of unbelief. Let me be your ally in warding off from the country irreligion, the destroyer of Christian life and of Christian civilization."
But, irreligion was not to be denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1947.
And, in proclaiming official governmental neutrality between religion and irreligion, the Court empowered irreligion to end governmental support of religion generally, which never had been intended when the Constitution was written, ratified or amended.
Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution gave the national government the express power to act in the field of religion, but both the Continental-Confederation Congress and the Congress under the Constitution supported general, nonsectarian religion.
But Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowered Congress to tax to "provide for...general Welfare of the United States" and "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" that and other powers, and suppport for religion generally was thought to be essential to, in the words of the Constitution's preamble, to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court subsequently banned voluntary school prayer, even though nondenominational, whether at school each morning or at a school football game.
Supposedly because Thomas Jefferson had written of a "wall of separation between church and state" and governmental property was not ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Featured Today
- Monaco & The Vatican: Monaco's Grace Kelly Exhibit to Rome--A Review of Monegasque-Holy See Diplomatic History
- My Dad
- A Royal Betrayal: Catholic Monaco Liberalizes Abortion
- John Paul II as an Apostle of Mercy
- Embrace every moment as sacred time
- A Recession Antidote
- The Why of Jesus' Death: A Pauline Perspective
- Father Lombardi's Address on Catholic Media
- Pope's Words to Pontifical Latin American College
- Prelate: Genetics Needs a Conscience