Liberal disdain for all things Christian, and the desire to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public view so as to pack the Christian faith into the four walls of the church, and no place else, is nothing new. The American Civil Liberties Union has been one of those organizations at the forefront of limiting biblical exposure to the general public.
The Ten Commandments posted at schools, courts, and government owned locations, has been repeatedly attacked, but the judges have refused to take the final step desired by the ACLU, and other similar groups, of banning the Ten Commandments from these locations. In the hopes of eliminating the Ten Commandments from public view of our children, the ACLU has embarked on a new tactic, arguing that the display of the Ten Commandments at places like schools is unconstitutional if people who actually believe in the biblical laws advocate it.
The hearing was held by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski, in which the School Board of Giles County fought to allow a private individual to donate a display of dozens of American law’s foundational documents, including the Ten Commandments. The ACLU is arguing that the display is unconstitutional because a school board member admittedly voted to allow the donation based on his own Christian beliefs.
Doe v. School Board of Giles County began in 2010, when the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a complaint over a long-standing display of the Ten Commandments hung at Narrows High School, in Narrows, Virginia.
Removal of the display in Narrows was followed by local protest, so the school board by a 3-2 vote permitted a private citizen – using no public funds – to create a display for the school featuring a number of important historical documents, including the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Compact, the Ten Commandments and even Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, from which the liberals involved in American law derives the phrase “separation of church and state.”
The federal courts have found such displays to be within constitutional bounds, but the ACLU filed suit anyway, using their new tactic.
Counsel representing the school board have indicated the actions were entirely constitutional, whether the members happen to be Christian or not.
“The ACLU has done everything it could to run from the facts and the laws that control this case,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, in a statement. “The Foundations of American Law and Government display has been upheld by multiple federal courts of appeal. It is clearly appropriate to include the Ten Commandments in a display on law, because there is no dispute that they helped shape American law and government.”
After hearing the case, Judge Michael Urbanski suggested reducing the Ten Commandments to Six - as if he knows better than God. The reduction, the judge argued, would neutralize the religious overtones of the commandments as a display on school grounds.
Remove the first four commandments, which are clearly religious in nature, and leave the remaining six, which make more secular commands, such as do not kill or steal. That's his argument.
Liberalism is doing whatever it can to wipe God out of existence, because they believe they are above Him, that man is above Him. . . chalk all this out as just another episode in the continuing saga of man's rebellion against God.
As for the Constitutional angle on this, the whole premise is screwed up. Where in the Constitution does it use the words "separation of church and state?" It doesn't. The whole root of this is wrong. The First Amendment was not written to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from the government.
1st Amendment Text: 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.
When discussing religious freedoms in America, we must understand the root of why the First Amendment was written in the manner that it was. The first part of the First Amendment addresses religion. The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was Europe, and more specifically, England. In England the Church of England greatly influenced the centralized governmental system because the king set himself up as head of the church. In return, the politicians greatly influenced The Church. There was no separation between powers of the king and the church. The problem, the Founding Fathers reasoned, was not faith in God, but the establishment of a State Church. Therefore, the founders determined that the federal government must not establish a state religion.
The second part of that clause was clearly designed to protect the various religious exercises by Americans from the government by instructing government to not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Freedom of religion was a big deal with those early Americans. The importance of religious freedom during that time period is common knowledge. Even the textbooks in today’s public school system reveals that the Pilgrims first came to The New World in search of religious freedom.
Through the passage of time secular forces in our society have worked to undermine the first clause of the First Amendment. Americans have been conditioned to believe in a concept known as "The Separation of Church and State." The concept has determined that the church is to have no influence, no matter how subtle, on government for any reason. Therefore, reason the secularists, any mention of God in the same breath with the federal government is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
To understand the error of the concept of "Separation of Church and State" in today's society, we must go back and discover the origination of the idea. To understand the truth, we must recognize the language used in the writings of the founders, as well as grasp the history of the colonies - including a series of letters between the federal government and the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, culminating in the letters to Thomas Jefferson after he became President of the United States in 1800.
Each of the colonies began as a collection of like-minded religious folk that wanted freedom for their religion (not necessarily freedom of all religions). In Jamestown, in 1610, Dales Law mandated the Jamestown colonists to attend Anglican worship. The law went so far as to have provisions against criticism against the church. Violation of Dales Law could even lead to death. The Puritan Colonies to the north had similar laws, even setting up their governments in accordance with Puritan Law. Connecticut was one of those Puritan Colonies, and in 1639 the colony enacted "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut." The law set Connecticut up as a theocracy, disallowing non-Puritans from holding office. The government was the church, and the church was the government.
This practice of religious preference was not limited to Connecticut. All of the States enforced established religions, except Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Though Pennsylvania was largely a Quaker state, William Penn believed that religion should be free from state control, so Pennsylvania did not persecute non-Quakers. However, in Pennsylvania, in order to hold office, you had to be a Christian.
Rhode Island, founded in 1636 as a colony, was based on the principle of true religious liberty, and took in folks who were trying to escape the religious persecution of the other colonies.
Connecticut's Puritan dominated landscape treated non-Puritans as second class citizens. There was a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who were tired of being treated in this manner.
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, and with James Madison's assistance, finally got it enacted into law in 1786. So after many letters to President Adams that resulted in no assistance, the Danbury Baptists were excited about Jefferson winning the presidential election in 1800. Finally, they would have someone in office that would help them in their plight for religious freedoms in Connecticut.
The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson to congratulate him for his win in the 1800 Presidential Election, and to appeal to him for help. Thomas Jefferson responded with a letter that carries the line, "a wall of separation between church and state," which has become the source from which the infamous concept of Separation of Church and State was eventually derived from.
The Founding Fathers desired that Americans be free to worship as they wished, without being compelled by government through an established religion. The key, however, is that they not only did not want the federal government compelling a person through laws regarding religion, but that the government shall not “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
Thomas Jefferson, as indicated in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and his other writings, was against the government establishing a “State Church.” However, he also believed that men should be free to exercise their religion as they deem fit, and not be forced to follow a government mandate that may prohibit religion.
The Danbury Baptists were concerned over local religious freedoms, but Jefferson was clear, the federal government could not mandate anything in regards to religion. It is a State issue, and the Danbury Baptists needed to address the issue themselves at the State level. Jefferson’s reference to a wall of separation was an explanation that the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion for any reason, including on public grounds, but if a State was to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or establish a state church, it was an issue that must be resolved at the State level. The federal government could not get involved.
What this all means is that the case brought about by the ACLU against the Giles County School Board should never have gotten to the federal courts. Judge Urbanski has no constitutional authority to rule on the case, for religion is a State issue. His ruling, and suggestion that the Ten Commandments ought to be knocked down to Six on the display, is not only appalling, but illegal.
The federal government thinks it has the right to dictate what happens in the schools because the learning institutions receive federal funds, which is yet another unconstitutional practice.
ACLU: Christianity has no place on school board - World Net Daily
Judge Suggests Chopping 10 Commandments Down to 6 - GOP USA
