"Congress 'shall' prevent religious expression."

"Congress 'shall' prevent religious expression."<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By shane Idleman
 
Why do so many deny <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America's Christian heritage? Many criticize it because they acquire their information from "revisionists" or secular interpretations of what the Founders believed, rather than looking to the Founders' "original" writings. Others reject it because they reject God. Simply stated . . . if there's a God (and there is), then the current direction of America's morality is wrong; something few want to admit.
 
There has been an ongoing, monumental debate in recent years about the government's role concerning religion. For those who understand the foundation on which the Constitution was built, there really is no debate. Don't worry, this shouldn't bore you; I'll get straight to the point.
 
How have the courts been able to gradually remove God's Word from society? The misconception focuses primarily around the phrase "separation of Church and State." Although the First Amendment clearly says that Congress shall not prevent religious expression, you would think that it reads: Congress shall prevent religious expression. The courts have used the infamous "separation" phrase to ban religious activities, primarily those promoting Christian principles. Sadly, many believe that "separation of Church and State" appears in the Constitution, when in reality, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Did you catch that? "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution. So where did it originate? Be very clear on this point, especially if you are a student in a public school or university, even a "Christian" university. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, used the phrase in a private letter written to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.
 
The Baptists, and rightly so, feared that the government might someday try to regulate religious expression. (Remember, that's one reason why the Pilgrims left England and headed for Holland before coming to America. This is crucial in understanding the spirit in which the First Amendment was written.) In other words, the Colonists, like the Pilgrims, did not want the government imposing a national religion or denomination on the people-they wanted to worship freely. Mr. Jefferson wisely agreed with them, as did many of the other Founders. Jefferson assured them that Congress would neither establish a national denomination, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, thus protecting religious expression by building a wall of separation between the Church and the State-solidifying the fact that the government could not strike down religious freedoms. If you doubt this, simply review the Annals of Congress from June 8th to September 25th, 1789.
 
Jefferson said that the freedom to express religion was a God-given right. The federal government was to be restrained in the area of religion; they could not seize the power of the States. However, approximately 150 years later, in 1947, the Supreme Court had other plans, and radically changed the meaning of the First Amendment. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court said that the States could no longer engage in religious activities, and that the federal courts could now restrict such activities. This is in complete opposition to what the Framers envisioned. The Founding Fathers wanted the State and the Church to be separate in their duties and functions, but interwoven in their core beliefs and principles. The State was to protect, administer justice, and defend the nation. The Church was to spread the gospel, guard the Word of God, and serve as the conscience of the people. You may want to commit those last few sentences to memory; with that understanding, there's really no debate.
 
Just how serious is this issue? In a newsletter entitled, Truth & Tyranny, Coral Ridge Ministries made this powerful statement: "Church-state separation is a lie, and it is deadly. It was this lie that led the Warren Court to ban prayer in public school in 1962. That ruling set in motion the speediest and most spectacular decline of any civilization in history." Does this statement seem outlandish? If so, it's been estimated that talking, chewing gum, and making noise were the top three public school problems in the early sixties. Now, rape, robbery, and assault lead the list, with murder close behind. You be the judge.
 
It's important to note that for 150 years before the 1947 decision, the States had their own powers and rights, and the federal government could not infringe on them. Religious expression, especially of the Christian faith, was commonplace. The courts now have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of a law-making body, rather than a protector of the Constitution. Therefore, we should pray for our leaders-executive, legislative, and judicial.
 
Without a shadow of a doubt, the intent of the Founders was not to remove God's Word from society, but to promote it. They were concerned about government influencing religion, rather than religion influencing government. They wanted God's principles to shape national policy. The wall that was designed to protect America's freedoms has now imprisoned her. We have, beyond a doubt, drifted off course. For example, the infamous Freedom of Speech clause was never intended to lead to the distribution of pornographic material, crude dialogue in the media, and an array of other misapplications. There was to be a balance between freedom and responsibility; a balance that early American's clearly recognized and respected.
 
Since many of the early Justices participated in drafting the Constitution, one can simply review their rulings in the courtroom to see how they felt about this issue-rulings reflect convictions. For example, in The People v. Ruggles (1811), the defendant was tried in court for saying vulgar things about Jesus and His mother. The defendant's attorney believed that he had an open and shut case, and that his client would not be convicted based on "freedom of speech." The Judge, however, did not agree because he understood the true intent of the First Amendment. The defendant was convicted, fined, and sentenced to three months in jail. In Judge Kent's words: "Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful." This statement would be laughed at today. The wall that was created to protect America has now imprisoned her-Congress is preventing religious expression.
This excerpt was taken from What Works for Young Adults-Solid Choices In Unstable Times, © 2007 by El Paseo Publications (www.elpaseopublications.com); Shaneidleman@roadrunner.com.
 

Support Our Broadcast Network

We're a 100% Listener Supported Network

3 Simple Ways to Support WVW Foundation

Credit Card
100% Tax-Deductable
Paypal
100% Tax-Deductable

Make Monthly Donations

 

-or-

A One-Time Donation

 
Mail or Phone
100% Tax-Deductable
  • Mail In Your Donation

    Worldview Weekend Foundation
    PO BOX 1690
    Collierville, TN, 38027 USA

  • Donate by Phone

    901-825-0652

WorldviewFinancialTV.com Banner