Tags
Separation of Church and State & the First Ammendment
There is good and bad in this video. Can you point both out?
Top Posts
Archives
Get updates on Twitter!
Popular Topics
America
Apostasy
Baptist
Barack Obama
Bible
blog
Calvinism
Christ
Christian
Christianity
Church
Constitution
Conway
culture
dispensationalism
doctrine
education
election
emergent
entertainment
Evangelism
faith
family
God
Gospel
government
Grace
heresy
history
holiness
Holy Spirit
Humor
Islam
Israel
Jesus
Jesus Christ
john
John MacArthur
John Piper
Justification
law
liberty
Life
love
music
new calvinism
News
Obama
of
pastor
Politics
Prayer
preaching
puritan
puritan prayers
Puritans
reformed
Regeneration
religion
Religion & Spirituality
Repentance
Salvation
Sanctification
SBC
Scripture
sermon
Sin
southern
Spurgeon
Theology
Tim
Truth
video
videos
Worship
Most Constitutionalists have never considered that the Amendment 1 did exactly what it was designed to prevent:
“…Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), Amendment 1 authorized equality for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. When the Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, it allowed Amendment 1 to fill the void by authorizing pagan polytheism.
“Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do: it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity (except within the confines of its church buildings) and established polytheism in its place. This explains the government’s double standard regarding Christian and non-Christian religions. For example, court participants entering the United States District Court of Appeals for the Middle District of Alabama must walk by a statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. And yet, on November 18, 2002, this very court ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Despite many Christians’ protests against this hypocrisy, it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions of the First Amendment.
“Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause—the freedom from religion—that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause—the freedom of religion…..”
Ted Weiland said “Most Constitutionalists have never considered that the Amendment 1 did exactly what it was designed to prevent”
The problem is that those who are for Christianity but complaint Amendment 1 not in their favor overlook what the entire US Constitution has provided for them.
First, Amendment 1 sets the tone of respecting and prohibiting at the level of “an establishment of religion”, but not at the level of religion.
Second, Article VI of the constitution of 1787 says “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”
Third, Article 3 of the Articles of Confederation says “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion…”
Fourth, the preamble of the Constitution affirms the “States hereby severally enter into a firm league” being a country of sovereignty by saying “in order to form a more perfect union” and inheriting the country name of “the United States of America” from the Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation.
Now, with all the above, the US Constitution obliges the American government to defend religion, although not each establishment of religion. But which religion should the American government defend? Islam, Buddhism? Sheik? Guru? Tao? Socialism?
Don’t argue that prestige politician so and so said that “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into” was only to mean treaty with some foreign country.” Any so and so said carried no weight of constitution, not even what George Washington said. So, Articles of Confederation is the most sacred “Engagements entered into” that the 1787 Constitution pledged to unconditionally inherit from the Confederation. Declining the legal prestige of Articles of Confederation, someone must prepare to decline its article 1, which is the only legal document existing in America giving the name to this country.
With all these, when conflict arises between Christianity and any other faith, the US government must smooth out the conflict in the way acceptable to the religion of Christianity. With all these, removing monument of Christian teaching from a federal building is unconstitutional; it is a persecution against Christianity but favoring other belief. Amendment 1 gives the US government no freedom of staying idle, or even the freedom of escorting non-Christian faith in the name of anti-discrimination on religion. However, if conflict arises, for example, between a church supporting a view of triune and another church against the same view, America government must stay neutral according to the First Amendment, because the conflict is at the level of “an establishment of religion”.
CRebigsol, no offense intended, but you really should have someone edit your responses before posting them. The grammar is so poor, it is often difficult to understand what you’re trying to convey.
That said, what the Constitution allegedly (or even actually) has done for us is NOT the issue–that is, IF you’re a Christian who’s ONLY concern is pleasing and serving Yahweh in Christ. This is particularly true if much of the same Constitution is antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality, as the Constitution is in nearly every article and amendment.
There’s only ONE standard by which EVERYTHING (including the framers and the Constitution) must be ethically judged–Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Have YOU ever examined the Constitution by this standard? I have. In “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” you’ll find a chapter to examining every article and amendment by this standard. The entire 565-page book is free for downloading on our Online Books page at bibleversusconstitution.org.
Eastman’s video largely offers but common canards.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We 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. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some 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.