It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Separation between Church and State is a LIE!

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:10 PM
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have all been conned and lied to by psychopathic control freaks; nowhere is there a sentence in the Constitution that declares that the Church must remain separated from the State.

The truth is extremely obvious if people took the time to actually read the First and Tenth Amendment to the USA Constitution:

First Amendment
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.

I know some like to gloss over the finer details because it goes against their Christian hating principles so I will quote the relevant parts:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And what are the Federal Court's besides the Supreme Court?

Congress's enumerated rights as found in Section Eight
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

For the lay persons "To constitute" means to "Create".

Now going back to the little thing called the First Amendment, Congress cannot pass any legislation in regards to religion period. So any Court system created by a legislative act of Congress has zero authority over religious matters. If Congress doesn't then who does?

Tenth Amendment][/i]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Atheist's and other Christian phobes have repeated a lie enough times that enough people gullibly believed them. The only way one could continue with this Separation of Church and State nonsense is if they were pathological liars or they are talking about a specific States own Constitution, and not the Federal Constitution/Federal Law's.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:16 PM
Oh good, another reason to bash atheists.

Like we just can't get enough of them.

Everything bad is the atheists fault.

Like Christians losing their special priveleges and getting the same status and rights as everybody somehow becomes the atheists are victimizing the Christians and forcing Christians to hide their identity.

Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar.


posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM
that was written to prevent the church being persecuted by the state.

just like rome was throwing Christians to the lions and hitler was throwing jews into ovens, the provision is to protect the church, not the state.

people in high government office, they threw God out the window along time ago to get to where they are.

Christians already have a King. they answer to no one, on earth or otherwise, but Him. regardless of whatever titles or positions they give amongst themselves.

that is a threat to any governments power.

edit on 10-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:29 PM
How is there a separation between Church and state when I was under the assumption that many states require some one to believe in god or something along that line ... Or am I wrong . I also realize there are some politicians who just play the religious angle seeing how many christians are in your country . A politician claiming he is an atheist would just be suicide for his career seeing how atheists are views as many people as less trust worthy than criminals .

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:58 PM
Separation of church and state came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. But the Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Which basically means neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

To put it in layman's terms Christians can whine all they want the government is not going to pass laws forcing your believes on anyone. And the same goes for Jews and Muslims.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:00 PM
A word from Mr. Thomas Jefferson on the matter...

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Thomas Jefferson

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by korathin

You're absolutely right, there is nothing in the constitution about the separation of church and state. Jefferson was concerned about the influence of religion on government, but it was never written into the constitution. However, just because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't mean it wouldn't become a dangerous precedence. All you have to do is look at the middle east and see how their government doesn't recognize other religions as much as they do the Muslim religion. Their criminal punishments are extreme and are usually extreme based upon their religious interpretations. I don't think most Americans wouldn't like to be forced to accept a government who's policies are based upon a particular faith or belief.

Having said that, it is written in the tax code that religious organizations are restricted on political and legislative lobbying or risk losing their tax exempt status.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:01 PM
The Constitution assures that Congress doesn't tax people for a state/national religion. The problem was having an official religion that the people were taxed for. Virginia and other colonies did this even after the Revolution. Jefferson's VA Statute for Religious Freedom came later and was an important piece of legislation because the First Amendment was based on it. So, for example, people who weren't Anglican/Episcopal had been taxed to support that church whether they believed in it, attended, or not. The idea of the First Amendment was to stop this on the Federal level ONLY. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the SCOTUS made this a states' thing too- as individual states up until that point COULD establish an official state religion and tax it if they had a mind to do so.

However, our forefathers established the Chaplaincy in Congress too, but they fought amongst themselves over it. Has it occurred to anyone that what was intended and how we interpret things NOW aren't necessarily the same? The entire Constitution as living document comes into play here. It seems to me that the forefathers had no problem giving tacit approval to a particular religion (Christianity) as most of them were raised in a Christian dominated culture. The U.S. Capitol building was regularly used as a church at one time (with Jefferson's approval- considering he attended). They saw Judeo-Christian religious values as instilling morality into the public and so they condoned people following said religions. Yet, OP, this still isn't the same as what you're saying. We do have separation of Church and State now. That ship sailed long ago in the early 20th century. Take it up with the SCOTUS.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Jefferson was concerned about the influence of religion on government

No, no, no.

Jefferson wasn't concerned about the influence of religion on government, rather the influence of government on religion. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, after all:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Their Creator"? Sense any religion in that statement?

But Jefferson was a Deist, which wasn't really the order of the day, and he had seen the ridiculousness of the intertwining of the Church of England and the English government (you couldn't hold any political office if you didn't agree with the Anglican orders, for example.) So his "separation of Church and State" can easily be seen as his method of preserving his right to be holding a minority religious view.

Though I am not a Deist, I agree with Jefferson 100% on this matter.

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by korathin

I'm a Christian, but I would like you to give your definition of freedom of religion. When you say freedom of religion, are you referring to freedom of Christian religion or freedom of any religion?

If freedom of any religion, then are you ready for the Muslim teacher to include writing a prayer to Allah as a writing assignment? Would you prefer a Catholic teacher to make Kindergarteners learn how to pray a novena? How about a Buddhist teacher asking your son or daughter to explain Karma to the family as an extra credit assignment? Care for a Wicca witch to teach spells in class? NO? Would you have restrictions? Who decides? What guidelines do we use?

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, yet it also does not demand that the State allow academic freedom to teachers in a state institution to profess the support of one religion over another. If you are interested in freedom of religion and not simply freedom of Christian religion, then we either make it a free-for-all or we keep it separated from the State in any way. I would gladly send my child to a private school where my own beliefs are upheld. I can also allow them to go to a State school where they are free from those influences I would rather not entertain. Either way, I already have the choice. I can also train my child up in the way they should go at home and when they grow old, they will not depart from the truth. I have the freedom already.

I ask you the only question that anyone can ask regarding freedom of religion. Do you support freedom of Christian religion or freedom of any religion for any reason someone chooses and no matter who they are and what authority they hold over others? Also, are you familiar with the nature of a captive audience as it pertains to the law?

ATS is not a captive audience. I can share my religious beliefs here and people have choice to click or not. It's a public square. School is a captive audience.

I share your desire to see truth reign free, but until God reveals Christ as fact and not faith, it remains a matter of personal faith and choice.

I am a teacher and I express my religion in a state school every day. My religion professes itself in actions and love, preserving the dignity of every child. I try to do this each day with character and honor. What better religion is there to profess in testimony than a life lived for others? Christ-like love shows Christ with no dogma or words needed. Who is going to stop me from showing love and compassion for those in need?

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

edit on 10-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in