"Separation of Church and State" a Myth

[Yirmeyahu]

I will continue to disagree with you on this. :) (of course you knew that)

Marriage in the eyes of the State is completely different from the "God Given Right" to marriage. One is a union in the eyes of the Lord and the other is the union in the eyes of the State.

Absolutely correct.

Asking the State for permission to be married in the eyes of the State does not disavow that you have the right to marry in the eyes of the Lord. Sometimes you can do more then one thing at a time. ;)

The two are mutually exclusive. You can't claim to have a God-given right to marriage when you, by your actions, acknowledge that marriage is a state-given privelege. It's one or the other. Either it's a God-given right or a state-given privelege.

You are only gaining "benefits" if you decide to do what is necess
ary to be recognized as married by the State.

Correct.

You have not lost your "benefits" you receive by being married in the eyes of the Lord which is of course you "God Given"right to be married.

Being married by the claim of a God-given right to marry means you don't have a marriage license, which means you don't get any state "benefits". There are no "benefits" associated with rights, only with priveleges.

Actually, I don't totally disagree with what you are saying. If you read what I wrote to Rawb, you'll see that I certainly don't believe that just because one has a marriage license means God doesn't recognize one's marriage. That is not true at all, nor is that what I am saying. I believe you have mistaken this for what I am saying, so I want to be very clear about that.

On the other hand, in the eyes of the state, by acknowledging their "privelege" of marriage, you have disavowed your God-given right to marriage. That's by definition, you really can't argue otherwise. It's 2+2=4.

Now, nobody gets a marriage license knowingly, voluntarily, and willingly waiving their right in favor of a privelege. It's unknowingly, unvoluntarily, and unwillingly. But the state doesn't care about that. That's what people need to understand.

The marriage license is a contract between the husband, the wife, and the state. That's not just my belief, that's the fact of the matter the courts have upheld.

A marriage, in the eyes of God (for those who believe in God), is the union of a man and a woman. It is a contractual arrangement between a man and wife. There is no room for a third party in that arrangement in the eyes of God. I'm sure everyone can agree with that.

[boone]

Victory for Chaplain Klingenschmitt . . . Navy Will Now Allow Him to Pray in Jesus' Name
Chaplain Klingenschmitt / Aimee Herd reporting (Jan 7, 2006)

Naval Chaplain Klingenschmitt will end his hunger strike with a communion service in front of the White House on Saturday, January 7th. Below is the official Press Release:

The Navy Chaplain staging a hunger strike outside the White House will end his fast this morning, after accepting religious accommodations from his reluctant superior officers.

"They're finally giving me back my uniform, and letting me pray publicly in Jesus name," said Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt.

The Chaplain will participate in a bona fide public worship service in front of the White House at 11 am Saturday January 7th, wearing his Navy uniform, and he'll pray publicly in Jesus name. in front of the media. He'll then break his water-only fast after 18 days (having lost 14 pounds), by sharing communion with everybody who attends.

"Today we celebrate a victory for religious liberty for all our Sailors, by worshipping God in public, in uniform, through our Lord Jesus Christ," said the chaplain. "We prayed in Jesus name, and God has answered our prayers. To God be the glory, great things He hath done."

Before his fast began on December 20th, the chaplain was in danger of losing his career for praying publicly in Jesus name and had been stripped of his uniform for all media appearances. But now, Klingenschmitt's career is saved, and he can pray publicly in Jesus name, in uniform.

While the Navy has reluctantly accommodated Klingenschmitt's request to worship publicly in uniform, the Navy has not yet granted religious liberty to all other chaplains.

The Chief of Navy Chaplains remains steadfast in his position that praying publicly in Jesus name denigrates other faiths and defends his predecessor's 1998 policy that tells chaplains who pray in Jesus name they ought to exclude themselves from participation in public events as the prayer giver.

Over 65 chaplains are still suing the Navy citing religious discrimination, and most of them are no longer in uniform, claiming they were passed over for promotion because their faith practices didn't conform to Navy pluralism. Congressional hearings and legislation may be forthcoming.

"Today the Navy has reluctantly obeyed the law, to grant me the religious liberty I always should've had," Klingenschmitt said. "But I won't stop fighting until every chaplain has the same rights I have today. I don't want special favors just because I've been on television. Mr. President, please sign the executive order to enforce the law since 1860 that allows ALL military chaplains to pray according to their diverse faith, in all settings, private and public.."

Despite requests by 74 Congressmen and 173,000 Americans, the President has not yet signed the executive order.

The public is invited to worship with Chaplain Klingenschmitt, in front of the White House in Lafayette Park, at 11 am Saturday 7 January 2006.

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling in his grave as to how his letter containing the phrase has been misconstrued. The "separation of church and state" is not in any of the official U.S. government documents.
http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_...rch_state.html

Who misconstrued it and when and how?

Fred Von Flash

[boone]

Thank you for resurrecting this valuable thread. If you would of clicked on the link, you would of read one credible source - I have been aware of this myth for a long time now, and think it is one of the biggest scams ever. Here is some of the info.

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000

This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.

In modern times groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been "separation of church and state." These groups have intoned the mantra of "separation of church and state" so long that many people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. In Proverbs Chapter 18, verse 16, the Bible says, "He who states his case first seems right until another comes to challenge him." I'm sure you have seen legal arguments on television where the prosecution argues to the jury that the defendant is guilty. Once the prosecution finishes the opening presentation, you believe that the defendant is guilty. However, after the defense attorney completes the rebuttal presentation of the evidence, you may be confused, or at least you acknowledge that the case is not clear cut.

The same is true with the phrase "separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is one of the misfortunes of the law that ideas become encysted in phrases, and thereafter for a long time cease to provoke further analysis." (2) The phrase, "separation of church and state," has become one of these misfortunes of law.

In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor out of context, strict separationists have often used the phrase to silence Christians and to limit any Christian influence from affecting the political system. To understand Jefferson's "wall of separation," we should return to the original context in which it was written. Jefferson himself once wrote:

On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part. (4)

Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President on March 4, 1801. On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his election as President. Organized in 1790, the Danbury Baptist Association was an alliance of churches in Western Connecticut. The Baptists were a religious minority in the state of Connecticut where Congregationalism was the established church. (5)

The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association is understandable once we understand the background of church-state relations in Great Britain. The Association eschewed the kind of state sponsored enforcement of religion that had been the norm in Great Britain.

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, "Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals -- that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions." (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a "national Legislator" and they also understood that the "national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State." (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson's limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states.

(continued at the referenced link) Here it is again:

http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_...rch_state.html

[FredFlash]

The title of this topic is correct. The notion of a "separation" between "church" and "state" is a myth. Nor does the first amendment establish a "separation of church and state", as commonly said. What it does is to recognize the right of the individual to choose which religious beliefs he or she will choose to espouse. The government shall make no laws affecting the establishment of religion.

Why should an individual have a right to choose which religious beliefs he or she will choose to espouse?

What exactly is "an establishment of religion?"

FVF

[FredFlash]

Judge Suhrheinrich joins a growing group of constitutional defenders who are willing to unmask the deceptive use of Thomas Jefferson's infamous "wall of separation" letter as an example of constitutional law.

Who used it deceptively as an example of constitutional law and when and how?

The United States Constitution does not now and has not ever contained the phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state."

Just look for it from Thomas Jefferson's POV or better yet, from James Madison's. Its there, trust me.

It was jammed into the Constitution by a majority of liberal judges in 1947 in the Supreme Court case Everson v. The Board of Education.

No it wasn't. It was jammed into Constitution by all of the conservative judges in 1878 in the Supreme Court case Reynolds v. U. S.

The decision reversed 150 years of court precedent

Show me 150 years of court precedents

and elevated the personal correspondence of then President Thomas Jefferson to the level of constitutional law.

Please show me this constitutional law based on TJ's personal correspondence.

FVF

[Phinnly Slash Buster]

The theo-thugs are working over time on this issue. At another thread below Missouri’s HCR 13 was in the news a couple of weeks ago. There was mention of Texas adopting a similar res. in some blogs I found? I plan on keeping up on these issues. The religious right is concerned they will lose their home team advantage in Nov. and are organizing huge e-mail campaigns and rallies to push through a series of bills that in concert would effectively kill the constitution. For some detail on the dozens of horrible draconian legislations they propose see this site below for reference.

Go to the Godless Americans Website -
http://www.godlessamericans.org/pacissuesbriefing.php

Re: State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=10536

[Phinnly Slash Buster]

The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"
by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000

Boone,
Mathew D. Staver's opinions are clearly a minority view, At present even a minority of christians. He is entitled to his opinion but I like many christians oppose what he and his organization stands for. Does the Liberty Counsel have tax exempt status? If so do they plan to keep it?
PSB

[Yirmeyahu]

Why should an individual have a right to choose which religious beliefs he or she will choose to espouse?

I don't know how to respond to that question. You think you should have your religious beliefs dictated to you?

What exactly is "an establishment of religion?"

A law dictating to you what religious beliefs you should espouse.