Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony
This is the headline for the news story I read. I was shocked by several statements I read concerning the case and of the outcome.
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
What started as a complaint by the parents of one student has escalated into a ban of prayer by a district judge which is now being fought against by the school district and the Texas Attorney Generals office. The consequences for violating the order is incarceration and other sanctions for contempt of court.
The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God -- “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”
“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/#ixzz1OBRTxU1X
This is not a new problem, it has been happening all over the country for many years. People that oppose Christianity, and therefore oppose Jesus, have been using the Bill of Rights and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to place a gulf between the US government and the church. It has been interpreted that any institution that is city, state or federally supported can not be tied to any religious organization. Schools, court houses, state parks, federal grounds, city owned properties and many others have been targeted by individuals to ban or remove any religious references from them. It is just a matter of time before sharing the gospel on a city street will become illegal.
The name that is given to this term or idea, which has been misconstrued, is "The Separation of Church and State". Many organizations have been created over the years to further the chasm between the government and the church. Through the media and progressive tactics, justices on the district level and supreme court level accept a misrepresented view of a separation and vote according to this information.
Can we expect a different outcome from people in a country that have lost their morality. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott “Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,”
The ruling was overturned by an appeal court judge that ruled the original court ruling was unconstitutional. The student was allowed to pray during the graduation ceremony.
In Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he mentions the term "separation between church and state". From this court rulings have been made to remove God from the government. Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is in the hands of the same government that claim they want no part of it. Control of our freedom is in the hands of those in judicial authority, chosen by the government and given the right to rule as their beliefs dictate.
All decisions which pertain to religion are decided by judges which are representatives of the U.S. government, and almost all are decided against religious institutions and religious beliefs. These decisions are made based upon false interpretation of laws which deal with an individuals freedom. History has been misrepresented to interpret laws therefore individual liberties are compromised because when religion is involved those that support it are not seen individually but as a group or organization.
The judge above decided the case based upon his beliefs and according to the freedom of one individual which protested against prayer because he didn't believe in God. The judge, ignoring the individual freedom of all those that supported prayer, decided in favor of one individual and removed the first amendment freedom from all others. This in effect caused the government to go against the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
According to the Bill of Rights the First Amendment: written 3/4/1789
"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."
The first part of this is the part that we are concerned about:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This, which seems to be the simplest to understand and to interpret, has caused the biggest problem for Christianity. This clause has been interpreted by many liberal scholars according to another text which was written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Below are both letters. The first written to Thomas Jefferson by the Danbury Baptist Association concerning religious liberty and his reply.
The Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,
to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others
clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th. Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
The Danbury Baptists started their second paragraph telling the president they believe that at all times and places religion is a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer because of his religious opinions and that the legitimate powers of the civil government extend no further than to punish the man who works ill toward his neighbor.
The question that the Danbury Baptists had, dealt with the constitution not being specific and seeming that freedom was granted as a favor by the government and not as an inalienable right of freedom. Which was a valid question then and still is today. If religious freedom was a privilege granted by the state or country and was freedom based upon a favor granted and that that freedom was only received through proclamation or by law and not because it is the inalienable right of an individual to have religious freedom. If religious freedom was granted to individuals then there is no freedom apart from what is allowed by the government, and can be controlled or removed as seen fit by government agents or representatives.
Thomas Jefferson’s answer in his second paragraph agrees that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God, that man owes no account to none other for his beliefs, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, and that the American people declared that no legislature be passed respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
This last statement, "thus building a wall of separation between church and state", has been used to interpret the first amendment. These 10 words taken from a letter and not used in context has been misinterpreted. In order to understand and to interpret the true meaning of the statement by Jefferson you have to research when the term was first used and in what context, and the beliefs of the writer to know the meaning of the term.
It has been established that the civil government is limited to actions only and not to opinions, according to Jefferson, when answering about the legitimate powers of the government. In the context of the Danbury letter, which deals with religion and the government, man is not accountable to no one but God for his beliefs not to the government or even to his fellow man.
Religious freedom in America started with what was called the "lively experiment". The colonies originally were not separated from the Church of England and were still under its control. In 1663 Roger Williams obtained a charter from King Charles to start a colony with the intention of creating a civil state which had full religious freedom.
Within this colony there was a separation of church and state which Williams called a "wall of separation", this term coined by Roger Williams was later used by Jefferson. He believed that soul liberty freedom of conscience, was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom demanded that church and state be separated. Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." He also called for separatism, which was the complete separation from the Church of England for true and pure worship of God.
Because of these beliefs; separatism, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, he was labeled a heretic and found guilty of sedition and heresy by the General Court for spreading new, diverse and dangerous opinions. His biggest complaint was against the state church and believed that the state had no business in religious matters and that the state should only concern itself with civil matters.
Many ideas have been proposed concerning Jefferson and his response to the Danbury Baptists. In order to understand Jefferson and his ideas and convictions. Whether or not he was Christian as some have suggested, whether he was devout in his worship of God or if he worshipped a false god is of no consequence. What matters is what he believed according to religious freedom when he answered the letter. This is important because a term he used has been quoted to determine what religious freedom is and how much liberty there is concerning the exercise thereof.
In order to understand with more clarity what Jefferson meant when he used the term “wall of separation” we must establish what Jefferson believed concerning the church and state.
Written in 1777, introduced in 1779 and adopted in 1789 by the Virginia General Assembly, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written by Thomas Jefferson and sets the standard for religious liberty in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Jefferson included in this statute concerning his opinions.
“Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;” (emphasis mine)
“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 therefore 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 was in his Almighty power to do,” (emphasis mine)
“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 endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;” (emphasis mine)
“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;” (emphasis mine)
“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;” (emphasis mine)
The entire text can be read at the link above.
Jefferson didn’t intend for the government to sit as judge over matters of religious freedom. This intrudes his powers into the field of opinion and in turn destroys religious liberty, which is against the first amendment. For a court judge to rule against a religious expression of faith, no matter the location, is against what Jefferson believed in and had expressed in this document. For a court judge to assume that an expression of faith or a profession of faith would have ill tendencies is a hazardous and mistaken idea. The decision will be based on opinions only and according to the beliefs of the magistrate. This is mainly because all decisions regarding this topic is according to the interpretation of the First Amendment by the sitting judge.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, heavily influenced later documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It was the first constitutional protection of individual rights.
“XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
This article of the Declaration of Rights promises freedom to exercise your religion and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards one another. A standard was set for all people in Virginia to practice as Christians and to express Christian virtues towards each other.
When this was drafted and accepted Thomas Jefferson was a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress and helped to draft the Virginia Constitution. He also served in the legislature and also as Governor of the state of Virginia, upholding the documents that were adopted by the state, many he helped to write.
A thorough search through documents and letters of Jefferson’s, it is easy to see that his ideas do not match the ideas of the civil authorities today. Jefferson stated that civil authorities provide actions and not opinions, but today we have civil authorities violating the letter of the amendment and changing what the American people wanted.
The first amendment does not provide for non-religious groups or beliefs, but only for those with a religious view; whatever that religion may be. It is only natural for non-religious people to oppose rights for those with a religious view. The first amendment provides individual freedom for Christians by not supporting another religion as a state sponsored religion. It provides freedom for a Christian to exercise their beliefs as is the normal manner for them, between them and God. It gives a Christian freedom of speech without fear of persecution or prosecution as long as it doesn’t promote illegal activities. Freedom of the press to report with truth or with bias without fear of reprisal. Christians the right to assemble peacefully, for any reason, without fear of government interference. It doesn’t specify where or when or for how long, for example it doesn’t say, except of government property. And a Christian has the right to petition the government when their rights have been violated.
We have sat idle while our freedom is being taken from us. It seems as if what the Danbury Baptist Association had worried about is true. That our religious freedom was just a favor granted, by the government, and it is being taken away from us. Separation between Church and State, which meant to keep the state from having control and sponsoring a religion, has been used to try to keep the church out of civil affairs. Federal and state properties have been declared separated from any expression of religious belief or exercise, in the confines of private offices. Prayer is condemned between co-workers of like beliefs in public buildings or public grounds.
Separation of church and state is not meant to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the interference of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment