“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.”
– 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
Notice, please, that there is no statement in the above wording that decrees a separation between Church and state. “The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.” (Wikipedia)
Over the last 30 or 40 years, little by little “Religion” has been slowly and systematically dissected and separated from many of those who choose to adhere to it in the name of “separation of Church and State.” From Christmas nativities to the word “Christmas” itself, those who celebrate the birth of Christ have surrendered to the brow-beating left who demand this separation. Graduates cannot mention their gratitude to God for helping them attain success. Funny thing, though. There is NO mention of the Separation of Church and State in the US Constitution. What it, in fact, states is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the “Seven in Heaven Way” case, as in the “NBC Under God” video below, it seems more like the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part of the amendment that is being fractured than rather than any establishment of religion.
Once might be an accident, but twice is intentional.
If they’re going to go through the motions to show a patriotic piece, then DO IT! This is nothing but a slap in the face to every God-fearing American. I certainly recognize the rights of those to believe differently, but removing God from view and from our everyday life is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If nothing more, majority rules!
I truly feel pity for those whose skin is so thin that the mere mention of God sends them into a fret, but I imagine there is a place somewhere that boasts no Christian heritage. As someone said, “If I lived in Tehran, I’d expect to hear and see signs and sounds of Islam. If I lived in Jerusalem, I’d hope to see evidence of Judaism. And with more than 85% of the American population claiming some connection to Christianity, it seems obvious there will be tell-tale signs of such.” (unknown) To those who wish to turn this sentiment back on me and accuse me of having thin skin to take offense at this obvious oversight, I simply say, “Enough is enough – NO MORE!” If there was evidence that the removal of God helped a society, improved the well-being of the population, I might consider it, but there is not. In fact, it is just the opposite, and I need look no further than my own nation to see the effects of secular humanist worship.
So … again I ask … How much MORE will we surrender? How many freedoms must be poached before WE,THE PEOPLE take a stand and cry out, NO MORE!
blogsense-by-barb 
Pingback: Separation of Church and State – Truth or Consequenses (via blogsense-by-barb) | YOU DECIDE
The principle of separation of church and state is derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
It is important to distinguish between the “public sphere” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public sphere–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties, they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
What you’ve said here is basically a repeat of my article with the exception of my point, which was that in an effort to “protect” everyone from the establishment of religion, first, the restrictions and (in the street naming issue) objections seems only to apply to the practice of the Christian religion, and second, to “prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.” If the families of the seven lost firefighters are supportive of the name, and the fire department itself is in favor of the name and the no one objected in the public hearings preceding the naming of the street, sorry … the objectors had their chance. It is clear to me they simply wanted a stage to voice their objections and rally the ACLU to repeal additional Christian sterilization. I, for one, am simply going on record as saying I’m tired of surrendering my freedom to worship as I believe I’m called to! I’m tired of my children being told they can’t say Merry Christmas! If that is the case, then TOTALLY eliminate ALL religious holidays from the secular calendar – no gov’t days off etc! Can’t walk on both sides of the street! In neither of these cases, is the GOVERNMENT establishing any religion or religious principle.
Pingback: Gen. George Washington – the Embodiment of the American Spirit « blogsense-by-barb