Archive for the ‘Wall of Separation of Church and State’ Category

Culture of Death

March 7, 2018

Every time there is a mass shooting or some horrific event in the United States involving guns, some (usually Democratic or leftist) politician or leftist talking head on television will boldly proclaim that America has become a “culture of death”.

I agree, but not for the same brash pontificating reasons they promulgate.   America, indeed, has become a culture of death, but it started long before the first mass shooting at a school.  Conspicuously absent from the culture of death dialogue on the left is the fact that God, the Bible and prayer have been stripped from our nation’s schools and the killing of the innocent has become the law of the land.

I would put forth that it started the day in 1963 when prayer was outlawed in U.S. schools.  (I remember clearly that when I was in first grade in public school in the late 1940s that we started each day with a reading from Psalms or Proverbs, a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.)  Prayer and then Bible reading were ripped from the children of America via three Supreme Court decisions in 1962 (Engel vs. Vitale) and in 1963 (Murray vs. Curlett and Abington Township School District vs. Schempp).  In all three cases, the High Court, led by liberal Chief Justice, Earl Warren, erroneously and boldly misinterpreted the First Amendment and cited the non-existing doctrine of separation of church and state that does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.  Essentially, the Supreme Court of the land was telling the nation’s children that Almighty God had no place in their life – no grounding of absolute truth; and no moral compass by which to judge one’s life.*

Then came the horrific Supreme Court ruling on  January 22, 1973 in Rowe vs. Wade that gave women in America the right to kill their unborn children.  Since that ungodly decision, American women/mothers have killed or allowed to be killed over 60 million of their babies – 60 MILLION!  So, what lesson did (and does) this teach America’s youth? That life is not worth much.  If your own mother can chose to end your life, then what is life worth?  NOTHING!  “So, why should I care about someone else’s life or my own?”

Abortion is a form of child sacrifice that God calls evil (see Leviticus 18:21, 20:1-5 and 1 Kings 11:5-8).   The debate from the left on what constitutes a human life in the mother’s womb is a non-issue as far as I am concerned and as far as God is concerned.  In the Bible, God declares that, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you . . .” (Isaiah 49:1, 5).  The left can argue all it wants about when a life is a life, but it is God who has stated that a life begins when He has conceived of it.

On top of these sweeping events affecting our nation’s children who become aggressive adults is the onslaught of violent video games and gratuitous Hollywood murder and mayhem filth that permeates our collective senses, but especially that of our youth.  Video games are no longer gratifying unless a 9 year old can blast away the humanoid of his choice or annihilate by a multitude of gruesome methods any foe he desires.  And we have the audacity to wonder why a growing number of our children are killing children or anyone else who invades their space.

One Virginia House of Delegates representative got it right in a speech before his peers on March 2, 2018.  You can watch and listen to it here.  Republican Nick Freitas (Culpepper, R-30) stated unequivocally that gun control is not the issue, the issue is the breakdown of our society.

PLEASE NOTE, the “culture of death” is not an issue of gun control or Second Amendment rights, but a mindset change on what is truly important to us as a people.  Do we want God in our lives or not?  Is murder, murder, whether of the unborn or those walking upright?  What respect for life do we truly honor and not give lip service to on a daily basis?

The great pastor and preacher, Dr. Peter Marshall, at the height of World War II gave a riveting sermon on March 11, 1944 called Trial by Fire.**  It was based on 1 Kings 18:21.  Some excerpts from that famous speech which I had the privilege of transcribing from a cassette tape his son gave me.

Materialism had a god, Dr. Marshall thundered.  His name was Baal. He offered to his devotees things that human instincts craved.  He was a god of the flesh.  His priests encouraged the people to follow their natural inclinations.  It was worship and indulgence expressed in lust and adorned in selfishness.  It had no inhibitions at all. . . .

So, morality became a relative thing.  The old absolutes were regarded as far too intolerant.  The national moral standards were lowered. . . .

It was a time now for men to take sides.  There was no middle ground.  They could not be neutral.  They had to be on one side or the other.  They had to decide whether their nation would be governed by God or ruled by tyrants. . . .

The choices you make in moral and religious questions determine the way America will go.  We badly need a prophet who will have the ear of America and who will say, “If the Lord be God, follow Him!  But if Baal, then follow him!”

President George Washington also had it right.  Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them (Farewell Speech, September 17, 1796).

*To learn more about these pivotal cases and the status of America, get my book, Revelation 18 and the Fate of America.

**Dr. Marshall’s complete sermon is in my book above.


America’s Descent into Chaos and Depravity, Part 2

July 3, 2015
Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]

. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”

Revelation 18:2b

Separation of Church and State.  After the dual victories against the Nazis of Germany in Europe and in the Pacific against the Imperialist Japanese, the people of America were euphoric.  Despite tremendous losses of life and great national hardship, Americans believed that nothing was beyond them; that there was great redemption ahead.  Wartime industry re-tooled for domestic production and a house building boom ensued as returning soldiers sought to return to civilian life.

America was definitely on the upswing—emotionally, economically and spiritually.  Then the big lie was foisted on the citizenry of the United States that destroyed the Judeo-Christian foundation of the country. Prior to the big lie America had frequently had challenges to its Constitution, its interpretation and espoused way of life for the citizens of America.  But nothing destroyed the biblical foundation and fabric of faith more than the big lie of the “Wall of Separation of Church and State.”

. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

Although there had been previous attempts to weaken the role of the Christian church in the lives of Americans, the door was opened wide to usher in a full assault on February 10, 1947 (less than two years after the end of WWII).    On that date the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (New Jersey) made what would become a “landmark” decision relative to the issue of the “Separation of Church and State”.  The case originated when a New Jersey taxpayer, Arch Everson, sued the Board of Education of Ewing Township because he claimed that their reimbursement of the costs of bus transportation to parents of students going to religious schools was a violation of the “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment.

Amendment I.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

U.S. Constitution

Representing the majority decision, Justice Black reviewed the essence of the case.  “A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. . . . this statute, authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools.”

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971)

Justice Black was a lawyer and a Democratic U.S. Senator from Alabama who was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937.

“The appellant,” Black continued, “in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. He contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. . . .”

Justice Black pointed out that “The New Jersey statute is challenged as a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion.’

The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, commands that a state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an ‘establishment of religion’ requires an understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes.”

In an effort to explain the majority decision Justice Black wrote several paragraphs that reviewed the religious history of the early settlers and his understanding of the intent of the Founders in authoring the First Amendment.

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

Justice Hugo Black, February 10, 1947, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

“A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches,” Black wrote.

“. . . The imposition of taxes”, Justice Black penned, “to pay ministers’ salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment.”  In the same paragraph Black referred to the colonists of Virginia and their role in understanding the importance of religious freedom.  Presumably referring to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786, Black wrote that “The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.”

Referring to earlier Supreme Court history in relation to the First Amendment, Justice Black continued.  “This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute.”

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1924-2005)

Justice Rehnquist was a conservative Republican attorney who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in January, 1972.  In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become Chief Justice.

Although Justice Black and the justices that joined in the majority decision got it right by deciding that neither Ewing Township nor the State of New Jersey violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black

concluded the decision with this sentence: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  The five justices determined that the laws of New Jersey had not breached this “wall” between church and state.  However, by referring to Jefferson’s statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, the justices forever opened a Pandora ’s Box for judicial misinterpretation and misapplication of Jefferson’s intention.

Thirty-eight years later in another landmark case before the Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985, the Court, using the same “wall of separation” reasoning, in a 6-3 majority decision struck down the Alabama public school’s minute of silence for personal meditation or prayer.  Dissenting Associate Justice, William Rehnquist, wrote for the minority opinion, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers [of the Constitution] intended to build a wall of separation. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers.”

If the Founding Fathers meant to insert a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution, why did they not?  To the contrary, in the midst of debating the ideals of the Constitution, they passed the Northwest Ordinance on July 13, 1787 that included this maxim: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Wall of Separation: Jefferson’s Intention or Judicial Fabrication, p. 53

(For a more complete review and understanding of the issue of the “wall of separation between church and state” read We the People: Birth of a Nation by this author.)