a condensed version for your reading pleasure...***please take notes***...

In 1620, a group of Christian pilgrims known as the Separatists washed ashore in what came to be known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. They first left England to escape religious persecution there. They landed in Holland but realized Holland was not a place that allowed their faith to flourish. They set sail again; this time for America.

When the pilgrims set up their colony in Plymouth, Massachusetts, they soon employed a policy that came out of their own struggles for religious freedom. They employed the first American policy of a separation of church and state.

The Separatists knew full well that when the power of the church is placed under the control of the government, the government then begins to mandate its own sanctioned religious practice.
Unlike the Puritans, who believed in establishing some form of a Theocracy, these Separatists, being true to their name, decided to separate the two entities of the church and the state so as to allow the free expression of religion to flourish. That is precisely what happened. Early America in the 1600’s saw many religious groups and sects set up colonies that were specifically designed for the free expression of their religion without government interference. That is what the separation of church and state is really all about: keeping the government out of the church’s business.

Fast forward to the writing of our nation’s Bill of Rights in 1789. Founding fathers like Patrick Henry and James Madison knew that allowing a mandated government religious practice would stifle religious expression in the new nation. They decided to embrace what is the most harmonious balance between the federal government and the church that the world has ever seen. They wrote the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In the First Amendment we see the balance between the federal government’s role in protecting religious practice and not coercing it. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all Americans the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious practice: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The federal government cannot mandate a religious practice, nor can they prohibit religious practice. Unfortunately, in the last few decades we have seen many judicial rulings that demonstrate a desire to uphold the establishment clause of the First Amendment at the expense of the free exercise clause.

The first major case that undermined the balance between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause occurred in 1947. In Everson vs. Board of Education the Supreme Court, led by Justice Hugo Black, an FDR appointee and member of the Ku Klux Klan, reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This decision set in motion an unconstitutional chain of events that has undermined our First Amendment liberties ever since.

Just what did Justice Black and the other FDR appointees to the Supreme Court do? They hijacked a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” found in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802). Jefferson’s letter was actually used by the court to limit religious freedom.

By taking completely out of context the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter, "separation of church and state," the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of religious expression in the public square was a violation of the “separation of church and state” found in the Constitution. THIS IS AN ASTOUNDING RULING, AS THE PHRASE “Separation of Church and State” IS NOT EVEN FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION.

In 1947, the Supreme Court actually used Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists as the basis for their decision, even though his letter is not Constitutional law.

Another interesting fact concerning Jefferson's use of the phrase, “separation of church and state” is its true meaning. Thomas Jefferson used this phrase as nothing more than a metaphor to express the First Amendment’s role as a protector of religious expression in the public square.

In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, President Jefferson said he believed there was a "wall of separation" in the Constitution that was designed to keep the government from interfering in the affairs of the church, not a wall to keep free speech out of the public arena. Thankfully, the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law.

While the 1984 case was a breath of fresh air to those who love liberty, the damage of the 1947 case has led to other terrible decisions that defy logic, reason and the Constitution itself. In fact, the 1947 ruling, in spite of being inaccurate and unconstitutional, has become part of the American collective consciousness.

While it is true that American students who do not want to pray in school should not be forced to do so, it also true that those who do desire to pray should not be denied their First Amendment right to do so. There is a balance in the First Amendment between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. It must be upheld in order for liberty to abound.
If we take a closer look at just what the Constitution really says, we will see that the religious practice of Americans is the choice of each citizen and cannot be censored even in public. The government cannot mandate religious practice, nor can the government deny that same practice. That is the balance of powers spelled out in the First Amendment. If we fail to maintain that balance then we as a nation are no longer truly free.

If only our politicians and citizens really understood the way our constitution was designed..great posting.

Something else not found in the Constitution

Any mention that the United States were founded as a Christian Nation. Surely if that was their intent they would have included language that clearly said that. They did not.

Read the founders thoughts on this.

Yoou are 100% correct in your interpretation of this letter

"President Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” found in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802). Jefferson’s letter was actually used by the court to limit religious freedom."

Note this was only a letter, not an Exutive order or Legal Document of that nature!

_________________________________________________________________________

On top of that letter, he wrote:

In the thick of party conflict in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

_________________________________________________________________________

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the statute into the state's law.

The following is the full statute:

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.


Read into that what you will, but, I think it is very clear in it's meaning...

Absolutely. Take a look at this.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I agree, there is nothing stating that this was a christian nation..the intent is consistant with people that were fleeing countries that Kings were demanding that they go to the church that they sanctioned..that is why is was so important to the founding fathers to take into consideration

Here's my problem I do. How many people think there is a separation of church and state and believe it to be law. I did a poll on here and I would say %80. That's why I argue it. To help people understand there is not. There should be if %80 of people thinks there is and agrees that their should be. I dont bash Christians. I am one my self. I believe in the bible ( dont agree with certain interpretations of it) and believe in god. Because I argue points that might be against what Christianity's means to you doesn't mean I do not believe in god. That's what great about this nation. You have the right to believe in any religion you seen apropreate to you..

I believe that the Founding Fathers were strongly against the influence of Christianity as it related directly to the construction of a brand new nation and society. Six of the higher profile diplomats were Deists. There might be more. There were also Christians involved of course but their agenda was clearly suppressed. That is why we indeed have a "wall of separation": between church and state. One might pose the question why did we in fact rebel against England and her divinely appointed monarchy unless we were fed up?

Didn't you get the memo?

Unless you are a sheeple who pukes the neocon line on these boards you couldn't possibly believe in God and are surely going to hell.

I agree. The only time in my life I have heard the ridiculous sentiment expressed that "this nation was founded on Christian principles" is when it is being uttered by a devout Christian. Many educated Christians understand this is clearly not the case.

The wall was not built to keep the influence of any church out of the state, it's intent was to prohibit the state from imposing a particular religious belief as the correct one and one you should follow.

You cannot possibly keep the religious views of people out of their decision making..it is impossible to seperate the two..just as it is impossible to separate the non-religious views from people..

a poll on here ?... ...I can can count one one hand the number of conservatives that post on this board...and...when they do...they are run out of town...

Ugg, thats not true at all.

I would agree. And the religious views of those 6 men were Deist and not Christian.

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Franklin

James Madison

John Adams

Thomas Paine

George Washington

I am a christian and a conservative, and won't be run out of anywhere... But as a christian, I do not believe that this is a christian nation, or founded on those principles, and most of the people I know feel the same..But there are many that do believe this..I agree

The problem with education is that many lack it, and as I have said before and have seen on here..little knowledge, is dangerous.

They are not run out of town for their beliefs, political or religious, but for the way they behave towards others.
Huge difference.

The problem is when they are questioned it turn into you are infringing on their rights. They have no problem using their beleifs to infringe on others!

The Christians were in fact accommodated and given their very own forum.

Run off the boards?

haha

I was called names, subjected to vile, violent and obscene insults in both mail and on the forums and repeatedly suspended on this forum all because of my opinions.

So don't tell me about being run off. More than one poster here has attempted to run me off.

Perhaps you are projecting the tactics used by some on these boards onto everyone here.

I won't back down.

I won't bend my knee to hate.

That's not running anyone off.

If a poster doesn't have the courage of their convictions and leaves just because not everyone agrees with them I feel sorry for them.

From my reading of alot of these postings, and on other threads, there are alot of people that feel that the opposing views are infringing on their rights..when discussing things in a civilized way, you would think that opposing views could be talked about without the assumption that each other is trying to infringe on their rights..