"Separation of church and state"
Through continuous usage over recent decades, the separation
language(Mentioned above) has now become so commonplace that many Americans
believe it to be a constitutional phrase found in the First Amendment. It is
not. Concerning religion, that Amendment simply states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The current application of the "separation of church and state" metaphor
actually represents a relatively recent concept rather than the enforcement
of a long-standing constitutional principle. This is demonstrated by the
fact that the separation idiom appeared in only two cases in the Supreme
Court's first 150 years; yet over the past 50 years, it has been cited in
seemingly countless numbers of Court decisions.
The phrase became the contemporary standard for judicial policy in 1947 in
Everson v. Board of Education when the Court announced:
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall
must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest
breach.
Quoted from ORIGINAL INTENT by David Barton.
Therefore, we see that "separation of church and state" is an
inappropriate application of our constitution which our high court uses to
declare many American customs and traditions unconstitutional. i.e.-prayer
in schools, public nativity scenes, etc.
"Open your mouth in the cause of those appointed to ."
Prov. 31:8 These words should ring in the ears of anyone who understands.
God has made it most clear what stance to take on abortion, or against those
who promote, practice, or otherwise condone such action.
I also found myself in the minority that could not bring themselves to
agree with the sentiment of Duane Wheeler that what was taught by the Pastor
was, indeed, false doctrine.
I was inclined to take him up on his offer to explain if necessary, but
held my peace when I saw the potential bomb de-fused by the soft-spoken
reply from the author of the post in which the Pastors quote was first
mentioned. My thinking was that the matter was past history, but it still
seems to be drawing some attention. Perhaps now I should accept this offer
so that I, too, may be enlightened.
>From: Soaring Golden Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [RR] In defense of the Gists' pastor
>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:56:22 -0600
>
>
>I don't belive in complete separation of Church and state.
>
>I do believe that the government should not interfere with the church nor
>ever prohibit the free exercise of legitimate religion, provided that
>religion should never be allowed to be an excuse for committing other
>crimes. For example, if someone claims that their religion requires human
>sacrifice, that should not excuse . However, government should steer
>clear of any regulation or preferential treatment that might favor, for
>example, Presbyterians over Baptists or Catholics.
>
>I also believe that our deeply-held beliefs need to affect what we do in
>our daily lives, including what we do in the political realm. Christianity
>should affect politics. If it does, and if there are enough Christians in a
>nation, then a democracy or a democratic republic may produce a righteous
>government. If not, then any democracy will turn as corrupt as the people
>voting.
>
>While I don't want to be legalistic, I also know that the Bible tells us
>not to participate in the sins of others, and that we should not fail to do
>the good that we know to do. Search the Scriptures and see if I am telling
>you the truth on this point or not. If we believe that ing of unborn
>children is wrong, according to the Word of God, then that belief should
>affect our votes. If it doesn't, then we may find ourselves "participating
>in the sins of others," and thus sinning ourselves, by not letting our
>morals affect our votes.
>
>I am grieved that there are some Christians who don't seem to believe that
>abortion is as wrong as . I'm not talking about the fringe cases,
>here, but the deliberate ing of a baby in the womb who would be viable
>living outside of the womb for reasons of "convenience," "expedience," or
>"choice." It also grieves me that some people don't believe that such
>ing should be illegal.
>
>More than one person seemed to be offended by the idea, quoted by Kelly
>Gist from her pastor, that people who voted for Al Gore should repent of
>their sin of supporting someone who supports abortion on demand. Some
>people called that assertion "false doctrine." I tell you that I have
>searched the Scripture, and I see nothing to contradict this pastor.
>Indeed, I warn you not to attack God's anointed pastors with your words so
>lightly.
>
>_______
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
> http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or visit http://rangernet.org/subscribe.htm
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
