Most people are surprised to know that the Costitution does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". So, what's its origin? At the time of the constitution, many citizens were concerned that one particular christian denomination would become the official denomination of the USA. The Danbury Baptists sent a letter to President Jefferson addressing their concerns.(Althought the states encouraged Christianity, they would not allow an exclusive state-sponsored denomination.) To calm thier fears, he replied in a letter to them:

"I contemplate with solemn 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."

Why did he select this particular phrase to reassure them?

Recall that he was adressing a group of Baptists, a denomination of which he was not a member. In writing to them, he sought to establish a common ground necessary between an author and the group he was adressing. By using the "wall of separation" he was actually borrowing the words of the Baptist's own prominent ministers; Roger Williams. For William's words had been:

"When they have opened the gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself...And therefore if he will ever please restore his garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto himself from the world..."

According to Williams,the "wall of separation" was to protect the "garden of the church" from the "wilderness of the world". That 'wall' was originally introduced as, and understood to be a one-directional wall protecting the church from government. This was also Jefferson's understanding, as conveyed through statements he made concerning the First Amendment (statements now ignored by the court)

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the constitution.

Second Inaugural address: In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercize is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government.

A letter to Samuel Miller: "I consider the government of the US as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the US. (10th Amendment) Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority."

Contrary to Jefferson's explanation of the intent, such power no longer rests with the states. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Educ., the court reversed 150 years of established legal practice under the Constitution and decided that it did have the right to rule on an individual state's decisions regarding religious practice. Prior to that reversal, the courts had left the decisions as Jefferson and all other Founding Fathers had planned it-"resting with the states." State legislatures have been passing laws since the 1600's allowing the free exercise of religious practices in schools and public affairs: voluntary prayer, bible reading, the use of the 10 commandments, etc. These laws had been enacted with the "concent of the governed" and through representatives elected "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Jefferson's words to the Baptist Association were soon forgotten since the rumor of a certain denomination becoming 'the official US church" never became fact. The letter remained in obscurity until 76 years later when it appeared in a case of Reynolds v. United States. The court did not use the words form the letter to separate church and state, but used them in an opposite manner. In that case, Mormans claimed that the first amendment's "free exercise of religion" promise and the "separation of church and state" principle should keep the state out of their 'religious' exercise of polygamy. Using the letter, the court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes between one denomination and another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws oaccording to general Christian denominational differences, not to basic christian principles. On that basis, they ruled polygamy was a violation of the Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian principles. 70 years after that case, in the 1947 Everson case, the court took 8 words out of Jefferson's letter (A wall of separation of church and state) and adopted that phrase as its new battlecry. It announced for the first time the new meaning of separation of church and state- a separation of basic religious principles from the public arenas. The court did not bother to present the context of Jeffersons phrase and how it had been originally used, nor revealed that it had been applied in an opposite manner in previous Supreme court cases. Those 8 words, now taken out of context, concisely articulated the court's plan to divorce Christianity from public affairs. There is no other instance in american history where the words spoken by an individual becomes the law of the land. His remark carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other founder. Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the Justices bypass all the other founding Fathers in order to find some words with which they could agree? And even then, they selected someone who was not a part of the convention that formed the Constitutional proceedings or was even in the nation at the time. And on top of that, they used his words in a manner in which he would not have approved! George Washington had much to say about the relationship of christianity to schools and government. Why doesn't the court quote him? The simple answer is that the Justices have found in Jeffersons 8 words what they want the First Amendment to say, and not what our Founding Fathers framed it to say, and not even what Jefferson understood it to say.

There is no 'wall of separation' in the Constitution, unless it is a wall intended by the Founding Fathers to keep Government out of the church. Jefferson's words have been twisted to mean the opposite; now, the state must be "protected" from the church!

There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it. It is amazing what continually hearing about separation of church and state can do to a nation!!!!

Most people are surprised to know that the Costitution does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". So, what's its origin? At the time of the constitution, many citizens were concerned that one particular christian denomination would become the official denomination of the USA. The Danbury Baptists sent a letter to President Jefferson addressing their concerns.(Althought the states encouraged Christianity, they would not allow an exclusive state-sponsored denomination.) To calm thier fears, he replied in a letter to them:

"I contemplate with solemn 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."

Why did he select this particular phrase to reassure them?

Recall that he was adressing a group of Baptists, a denomination of which he was not a member. In writing to them, he sought to establish a common ground necessary between an author and the group he was adressing. By using the "wall of separation" he was actually borrowing the words of the Baptist's own prominent ministers; Roger Williams. For William's words had been:

"When they have opened the gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself...And therefore if he will ever please restore his garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto himself from the world..."

According to Williams,the "wall of separation" was to protect the "garden of the church" from the "wilderness of the world". That 'wall' was originally introduced as, and understood to be a one-directional wall protecting the church from government. This was also Jefferson's understanding, as conveyed through statements he made concerning the First Amendment (statements now ignored by the court)

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the constitution.

Second Inaugural address: In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercize is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government.

A letter to Samuel Miller: "I consider the government of the US as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the US. (10th Amendment) Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority."

Contrary to Jefferson's explanation of the intent, such power no longer rests with the states. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Educ., the court reversed 150 years of established legal practice under the Constitution and decided that it did have the right to rule on an individual state's decisions regarding religious practice. Prior to that reversal, the courts had left the decisions as Jefferson and all other Founding Fathers had planned it-"resting with the states." State legislatures have been passing laws since the 1600's allowing the free exercise of religious practices in schools and public affairs: voluntary prayer, bible reading, the use of the 10 commandments, etc. These laws had been enacted with the "concent of the governed" and through representatives elected "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Jefferson's words to the Baptist Association were soon forgotten since the rumor of a certain denomination becoming 'the official US church" never became fact. The letter remained in obscurity until 76 years later when it appeared in a case of Reynolds v. United States. The court did not use the words form the letter to separate church and state, but used them in an opposite manner. In that case, Mormans claimed that the first amendment's "free exercise of religion" promise and the "separation of church and state" principle should keep the state out of their 'religious' exercise of polygamy. Using the letter, the court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes between one denomination and another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws oaccording to general Christian denominational differences, not to basic christian principles. On that basis, they ruled polygamy was a violation of the Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian principles. 70 years after that case, in the 1947 Everson case, the court took 8 words out of Jefferson's letter (A wall of separation of church and state) and adopted that phrase as its new battlecry. It announced for the first time the new meaning of separation of church and state- a separation of basic religious principles from the public arenas. The court did not bother to present the context of Jeffersons phrase and how it had been originally used, nor revealed that it had been applied in an opposite manner in previous Supreme court cases. Those 8 words, now taken out of context, concisely articulated the court's plan to divorce Christianity from public affairs. There is no other instance in american history where the words spoken by an individual becomes the law of the land. His remark carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other founder. Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the Justices bypass all the other founding Fathers in order to find some words with which they could agree? And even then, they selected someone who was not a part of the convention that formed the Constitutional proceedings or was even in the nation at the time. And on top of that, they used his words in a manner in which he would not have approved! George Washington had much to say about the relationship of christianity to schools and government. Why doesn't the court quote him? The simple answer is that the Justices have found in Jeffersons 8 words what they want the First Amendment to say, and not what our Founding Fathers framed it to say, and not even what Jefferson understood it to say.

There is no 'wall of separation' in the Constitution, unless it is a wall intended by the Founding Fathers to keep Government out of the church. Jefferson's words have been twisted to mean the opposite; now, the state must be "protected" from the church!

There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it. It is amazing what continually hearing about separation of church and state can do to a nation!!!!

Maybe the seperation of church and state got popular after the witch hunts?

Seperation of church and state protects christianity too, you know. What if the state decided that the religion we should all practice is muslim? Seperation of church and state protects your right to your religion and my right to get the hell away it.

Maybe the seperation of church and state got popular after the witch hunts?

Seperation of church and state protects christianity too, you know. What if the state decided that the religion we should all practice is muslim? Seperation of church and state protects your right to your religion and my right to get the hell away it.

................................................................

The faith of this country is the "Christian" Faith. It is the faith this Nation began with. Just like the language of this country is "English". People are free to speak any language they choose to speak while here in the U.S., but they should not expect us to go out of our way, so to speak, to accomodate thier language. If we did that for every language in this country, we would have to say press one for english, press two for french, press 3 for italian, and so on and on. Christianity is this countries faith. People are free to choose any faith they wish to practice while here in the U.S., but they should not expect us to go out of our way, so to speak, to accomodate their faith. Why were our laws changed to exclude prayer and bible reading in public gatherings? Or to exclude the display of the 10 commandemnts in public buildings? Or why should we take "under God" out of our pledge to the flag? Why should we remove "in God we trust" from our money? These are the foundations of our becoming the greatest Nation on this earth. The further we remove God from this country, the further God moves from us!

One thing that really annoys me is the need to correct Obama's misreading of U.S. History. He should know better after all, since he is the President of this country. America was a Christian country in its early days and the modern day secularists are intolerant of God in public places, yet say it is the Christians in this country who are the intolerant ones. Just because many Christians believe that their views are the only correct one, does't mean they are intollerant. Tollerance is allowing dissenters the freedom to worship the way they want. Because the US has no established church, people of differing philosophies must learn to live together. We are more successful in that than many muslim countries. When Obama said that America wasn't a Christian Nation, he threw the first stone. That Christmas, and not Yom Kippur or Ramadan, is a national holiday in America indicates our Christian Heritage. That does not mean that non Christians and unbelievers do not have a right to live here freely. The Christian dissenter should not have the right to censor the believer. Although they try at every option to do just that.

Patty, you’ve tried to inject this thought into a couple of other threads recently and now created this one to stand on its own.

This is what you get for your

I think you are in a tiny minority on this one. The Supreme Court and nearly every elected official (especially ones that want to get reelected) have deemed that we have a Secular Democracy in this country. When your opponents on LBT remind you of the atrocities of the Bush administration, you always say that was then and this is now. I suggest you do the same with this issue. I don’t for a second agree with you that we were ever a “Christian Nation” as you say, but even if we were – we are not now and never will be in the future. We are a nation of many faiths (and non believers), but none of those faiths can or should have any significance in our laws or government.

Pres. Kennedy got it right and Chris Matthews gets it right and the Bishop is almost speechless. This is the best I've seen Matthews.

Hardball with Chris Matthews

He lambasted the poor guy with questions and then would not let him respond to them. If I were him, I would have told it like it is. Abortion is murder and the law should not allow them. If a women chose to find another way to get rid of her child , then the blood of that child be on her before God, and not the rest of us for allowing it by law or paying for it through our tax dollars.

BTW, if you are Catholic, like that guy who was denied communion, and you want to continue to be in good faith with that denomination, then you need to be in agreement with what they teach, which is 'abortion is murder'. Now, if you don't agree with what they teach, then get out. That's the problem with Christian denominations today. New ones are springing up all the time because people want to hear what their itching ears want to hear. In other words, they don't listen to 'sound' doctrine because they want to live the way they want to and if if the bible contradicts what they want to do, they will start their own church and tell their congregants that this or that is allowed in their church without any regard to what God has to say about it. Churches that allow gay preachers are pacifying those who are gay. They are saying that it is okay, when surely God says it is not, just to appease those who want to have sex with the same sex. Shame on them.

Give it up PG - Kennedy and Matthews got it right and Matthews nailed that Bishop who didn't have any answers. The issue isn't whether the church believes abortion is murder and a sin. The issue is whether they should be trying to dictate public policy from the pulpit. That is mixing religion and politics and that is not what the people of this country want.

If you watched the video you saw Chris Matthews say he agreed with the church's position but doesn't believe their moral authority reaches beyond the congregation. I agree.

The Bishop wants to deny communion to a catholic who is an elected representative because he supports the law of the land. That is wrong. His personal beliefs and his public beliefs are separate. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Matthews gave the Bishop ample time to answer - the problem was that he couldn't answer Matthew's questions - which were about what the Bishop would want to do once abortion was illegal. He was unwilling to say what should be done with women who get abortions or their providers. Why not? If you're going to want to change the law - they you have treaded into legal territory and you had better be able to back up your position and not say (wishy-washy) "well, I don't know, I'm not versed in writing legislation."

Chris Matthews nailed him and he was right and the Bishop couldn't provide any answers beyond abortion is wrong. And that is not the issue or discussion anymore.

If every catholic accepted every position of the catholic church and didn't attend mass otherwise, the church would be very empty. Maybe that's what should happen.

I'm not catholic, But I believe this is right on:

{QUOTE} The Bishop wants to deny communion to a catholic who is an elected representative because he supports the law of the land.

No. It's because he supports 'abortion'.

I'm not catholic, But I believe this is right on:

{QUOTE} The Bishop wants to deny communion to a catholic who is an elected representative because he supports the law of the land.

No. It's because he supports 'abortion'.

Just another right wing conspiracy theory. Pure bunk!!

The issue is whether they should be trying to dictate public policy from the pulpit. That is mixing religion and politics and that is not what the people of this country want.

I agree with you here, C's Mom. I am a Christian, but I think it's a little condescending for a leader of ANY church to try and influence their congregation. I agree that churches have the RIGHT to say whatever they want, but I still don't like it.

If you watched the video you saw Chris Matthews say he agreed with the church's position but doesn't believe their moral authority reaches beyond the congregation. I agree.

The Bishop wants to deny communion to a catholic who is an elected representative because he supports the law of the land. That is wrong.

But....didn't you say that you agreed that the church had the right to do whatever it wants within that church?? The church can deny communion to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. The way I see it, the representative can either vote the way his church wants, or he can accept their religious sanctions, or he can find another church.

I agree with you here, C's Mom. I am a Christian, but I think it's a little condescending for a leader of ANY church to try and influence their congregation. I agree that churches have the RIGHT to say whatever they want, but I still don't like it.

But....didn't you say that you agreed that the church had the right to do whatever it wants within that church?? The church can deny communion to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. The way I see it, the representative can either vote the way his church wants, or he can accept their religious sanctions, or he can find another church.

I said the church has the right to preach its message to the congregation. But I don't think it has the right to deny communion to anyone for any reason because the church believes that communion is the actual body and blood of Christ and it would be the same as Jesus denying someone an opportunity to receive him. I think they are overstepping their bounds and authority with this one. If they want to deny someone absolution in confession, they can, but I don't agree with their using the body and blood of Jesus as hostage. But then all of this (and the sexual scandal among other things) is why they are losing members here.

I said the church has the right to preach its message to the congregation. But I don't think it has the right to deny communion to anyone for any reason because the church believes that communion is the actual body and blood of Christ and it would be the same as Jesus denying someone an opportunity to receive him. I think they are overstepping their bounds and authority with this one. If they want to deny someone absolution in confession, they can, but I don't agree with their using the body and blood of Jesus as hostage.

Well, I see your point, but it IS their religion. Follow the rules or face the consequences. And I hold that standard to any / all religions, including my own. Should the baptists vote to disown / impeach / ban (I'm not sure of the terminology, because we baptists are a pretty forgiving lot in general) me because I wasn't following one of the rules, I guess I'd have to choose between following the rules of the church or doing whatever it was that got me in trouble.

Happy thanksgiving to everyone!!

Each year at this time, when we are supposed to reflect on peace and good will toward all men, it seems we are bombarded by anti-Christmas. Most of this is brought on by the erroneous belief that there is a separation of church and state. If one truly reads the Constitution and its amendments, one would find no mention of a separation. In a letter to Baptists in Danbury, CT written years after the enactment of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in support of a "wall of separation" between church and state. This was and still is a personal opinion that never has been written into law. A past supreme court ruled that there is a separation. However, that law and the entire judicial system are living proof this is an error. A courthouse is a state building and a trial is a state procedure. Why is it that when one is about to give a testamony, he must put his hand on the bible and swear to God he will tell the truth? Our judicial system is living a double standard. Why does our congress open in prayer every day if they don't believe in God, or that he should be included in their federal affairs? Hypocrits.

The Constitution does not take God out of society, and the First Amendment restricts only Congress, denying it the power to establish a National Church. The first amendment did not stop America from being a Christian Nation. Allowing religious groups from placing religious symbols on a town green does not establish any church. Therefore it should be allowed.

Go ahead! Wish me a Merry Christmas! The PC (politically correct) Cops worry that a Christmas Party at school will exclude some or make them feel uncomfortable, so they will have a winter-something-or-other party instead. Well, what about those who hate winter? I know I did? Standing in the freezing snow waiting for the bus, shoveling foot after foot. Why don't they care about these summer loving kids? They say the Constitution doesn't protect citizens from frostbite, but it does call for the often quoted "separation of church and state". As anyone who has read the Constitution can tell you, that famous phrase appears exactly zero times. It stops a theocracy from running the country, it doesn't mean Santa can't be in the building. How long before one can't wear a crucuifix or star of David around his neck because it possibly could offend someone? It seems to me that people were alot better off believeing in God. The more we marginalize our faith, the worse our society will become. PC will be the end of us all. If you think this is an exageration, recall the Fort Hood killings. Nidal Malik Hasan raised red flag after red flag, but nobody in power wanted to act and instead remained PC. I can only assume that the families of those he murdered wish the PC took the day off. Those families would still be intact if they did and probably celebrating something greater than Winter!