Was America Founded to Be Secular?

Did the Founding Fathers want American society to be religious or secular?

SOMETHING I WROTE 7 YEARS AGO:

The Misinterpretation Of The Separation Of Church And State

 

This time of year there are many “religious issues.” Bill O’Reilly will tell you that there is a War on Christmas. So the Lexington Libertarian will bring out of moth balls from its archives a post on misinterpretation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

In Christine O’Donnell’s debate with Chris Coons, she was almost laughed off the stage for challenging that the phrase “separation of church and state,” or “a wall of separation between church and state,” appeared in the Constitution.

The first amendment has two religious clauses.

(1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which is the Establishment Clause.

(2) “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Free Exercise Clause.

Neither of these is called the Separation Clause because separation of church and state is never mentioned in those terms in the Constitution. Now those at the O’Donnell-Coons debate and other elitists in academia try to tell us that not establishing a religion is the same thing as separating religion and state into separate corners, to borrow a fight game analogy. This is just gobbeldy gook and those in their smugness who haughtily try to shower any who say otherwise with scorn are trying to interpret their own agenda into something where the meaning and intent is entirely different.


WHERE DID THE PHRASE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”
COME FROM?”

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

The origin of the phrase “separation of church and state’”comes from correspondence between the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists and Thomas Jefferson. The Danbury Baptists were concerned that if a Connecticut state religion was instituted by law that their freedom to worship would be compromised. They sought reassurance that this would not happen. You might remember that much earlier the Puritans had fled Europe, because of religious persecution in countries that had a state endorsed religion, to set up shop in Massachusetts. There they put in place in essence a state Puritan religion prompting Roger Williams and the Baptists to flee to Rhode Island in order to freely practice their religion.

So the Danbury, Baptists in 1801 wrote in their letter to Jefferson:

“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 neighbor.”

Jefferson replied on January 1, 1802.

“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 and State.” (emphasis added)


HISTORICAL INTENT

Often times the Supreme Court will take under advisement the intent of the writers of the Constitution and the historical context in which statues were written as well as the actual wording of the Constitution itself. It is only fair then to do the same here, to probe just what the framers had in mind and just what situations the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were aimed at.

James Madison, often called the author of the Constitution, had a slightly different wording in the original draft of the First amendment Religious Clauses. In the first draft Madison wrote:


“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”(emphasis added)

This draft was hotly debated and eventually through compromise we ended up with what we have now. But during that debate Madison made it plainly clear what motivated him and what his purpose was in crafting the First amendment.

He said, “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

So we see the framers, whose context was that they came from European monarchies with state religions, were determined that there would be no national church and that everybody would have the religious freedom to worship as they pleased.

That is a far cry from the modern application of this amendment. We have gone from a “hands off” attitude to removing all religion from the government. That was never the intent of those who wrote the rules. Today we interpret the first amendment to remove all religion from the marketplace. The 10th Amendment cannot be displayed on government buildings, crosses are yanked out of remote areas and prayer while school is in session, even a moment of silence is not allowed.

In that school prayer case, Wallace versus Jaffree, 1985, Justice Rhenquist in the dissenting opinion said, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”

The Liberal Left who disregard the Constitution whenever it gets in their way now are seen to be championing a strict interpretation of our sacred document while in the process adding words and meanings that are not there. All this to create a secular society that is religious neutral. But neutrality was never the design of the framers nor was free expression of religion in the marketplace deemed either offensive or illegal.

ONLY RELIGION INITIATED BY THE STATE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE DETRIMENTAL AND OUT OF BOUNDS. RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION INITIATED BY INDIVIDUALS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE MORAL AND LEGAL.

There is no national religious endorsement of any religion by the government and there hasn’t been such for centuries. Today all the application of the First Amendment Religious Clauses has been geared to stifling the religious expression of individuals. The framers were never concerned with what individuals were doing; they were concerned with what government might do.

In the process the Left has hurdled America from freedom of religion to freedom from religion. The result has been the state, our government, taking an antagonistic attitude to any religious expression.

……………The Lexington Libertarian, October 2010

Wisdom Begins With Fear Of God

NO GOD, NO WISDOM

Prager Exposes “Substitute Religions”

Leftism is the most dynamic religion in the world!

Race, Gender, Class – The Left Wing Trinity

 

 

Dennis Prager writes:

How I found God at Columbia

Very few people can say that they found God or religion at college or graduate school. The university, after all, is a radically secular institution that either ignores or disparages religious belief in God.

Yet, one day, when I was a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I had what can honestly be called an epiphany.

I remember it very clearly. Since entering graduate school, I was preoccupied with this question: Why did so many learned and intelligent professors believe so many foolish things?
Why did so many people at my university believe nonsense such as Marxism? I was a fellow at the Russian Institute where I specialized in Soviet affairs and Marxism, and so I encountered professor after professor and student after student who truly believed in some variation on Marxism.

Why did so many professors believe and teach the even more foolish notion that men and women are basically the same? At college, it was a given that the differing conduct of boys and girls and of men and women is a result of different, i.e., sexist, upbringings. The feminist absurdity that girls do girl things because they are given dolls and tea sets, and boys do boy things because they are given trucks and toy guns, was actually believed in the mind-numbing world of academic intellectuals.

And why were so many professors morally confused? How could people so learned in contemporary history morally equate the Soviet Union and the United States, regard America as responsible for the Cold War, or regard Israel as the Middle East’s villain?

One day, I received an answer to these questions. Seemingly out of nowhere, a biblical verse — one that I had recited every day in kindergarten at the Jewish religious school I attended as a child — entered my mind. It was a verse from Psalm 111: “Wisdom begins with fear of God.”

The verse meant almost nothing to me as a child — both because I recited it in the original Hebrew, which at the time I barely understood, and because the concept was way beyond a child’s mind to comprehend. But 15 years later, a verse I had rarely thought about answered my puzzle about my university and put me on a philosophical course from which I have never wavered.

It could not be a coincidence that the most morally confused of society’s mainstream institutions and the one possessing the least wisdom — the university — was also society’s most secular institution. The Psalmist was right — no God, no wisdom.

Most people come to believe in God through what I call the front door of faith. Something leads them to believe in God. Since that day at Columbia, however, I regularly renew my faith through the back door — I see the confusion and nihilism that godless ideas produce and my faith is restored. The consequences of secularism have been at least as powerful a force for faith in my life as religion.

If our universities produced wise men and women, curricula of moral clarity, and professors who loved liberty and truth, not to mention loved America — there is no question that my religious faith would be challenged. I would look at the temple of secularism, the university, and see so much goodness and wisdom that I would have to wonder just how important God and religion were.

But I look at the university and see truth deconstructed, beauty reviled, America loathed, good and evil inverted, elementary truths about life denied, and I realize that one very powerful argument for God is that society cannot function successfully without reference to Him.

So as much as I shudder almost every time I read of another academic taking an absurd position, I also feel my faith renewed.

Ironically, the worse the universities get, the greater their tribute to God.

We Got To Give This World Back To God

 “You gotta get down on your knees, believe, fold your hands and beg and plead, you gotta keep on praying.”

“Cause we’re still worth saving, we can’t go on like this and live like this, we can’t love like this, we gotta give this world back to God”

Dennis Prager writes:

How I found God at Columbia

Very few people can say that they found God or religion at college or graduate school. The university, after all, is a radically secular institution that either ignores or disparages religious belief in God.

Yet, one day, when I was a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I had what can honestly be called an epiphany.

I remember it very clearly. Since entering graduate school, I was preoccupied with this question: Why did so many learned and intelligent professors believe so many foolish things?
Why did so many people at my university believe nonsense such as Marxism? I was a fellow at the Russian Institute where I specialized in Soviet affairs and Marxism, and so I encountered professor after professor and student after student who truly believed in some variation on Marxism.

Why did so many professors believe and teach the even more foolish notion that men and women are basically the same? At college, it was a given that the differing conduct of boys and girls and of men and women is a result of different, i.e., sexist, upbringings. The feminist absurdity that girls do girl things because they are given dolls and tea sets, and boys do boy things because they are given trucks and toy guns, was actually believed in the mind-numbing world of academic intellectuals.

And why were so many professors morally confused? How could people so learned in contemporary history morally equate the Soviet Union and the United States, regard America as responsible for the Cold War, or regard Israel as the Middle East’s villain?

One day, I received an answer to these questions. Seemingly out of nowhere, a biblical verse — one that I had recited every day in kindergarten at the Jewish religious school I attended as a child — entered my mind. It was a verse from Psalm 111: “Wisdom begins with fear of God.”

The verse meant almost nothing to me as a child — both because I recited it in the original Hebrew, which at the time I barely understood, and because the concept was way beyond a child’s mind to comprehend. But 15 years later, a verse I had rarely thought about answered my puzzle about my university and put me on a philosophical course from which I have never wavered.

It could not be a coincidence that the most morally confused of society’s mainstream institutions and the one possessing the least wisdom — the university — was also society’s most secular institution. The Psalmist was right — no God, no wisdom.

Most people come to believe in God through what I call the front door of faith. Something leads them to believe in God. Since that day at Columbia, however, I regularly renew my faith through the back door — I see the confusion and nihilism that godless ideas produce and my faith is restored. The consequences of secularism have been at least as powerful a force for faith in my life as religion.

If our universities produced wise men and women, curricula of moral clarity, and professors who loved liberty and truth, not to mention loved America — there is no question that my religious faith would be challenged. I would look at the temple of secularism, the university, and see so much goodness and wisdom that I would have to wonder just how important God and religion were.

But I look at the university and see truth deconstructed, beauty reviled, America loathed, good and evil inverted, elementary truths about life denied, and I realize that one very powerful argument for God is that society cannot function successfully without reference to Him.

So as much as I shudder almost every time I read of another academic taking an absurd position, I also feel my faith renewed.

Ironically, the worse the universities get, the greater their tribute to God.

Amazing Grace Cherokee – PRAYER

 

Native American Prayer:
Oh Great Spirit,
Whose voice I hear in the winds,
And whose breath gives life to all the world,
hear me!
I am small and weak,
I need your strength and wisdom.
Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes
ever behold the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have made
and my ears sharp to hear your voice.
Make me wise so that I may understand the
things you have taught my people.
Let me learn the lessons you have hidden
in every leaf and rock.
I seek strength, not to be greater than my brother,
but to fight my greatest enemy – myself.
Make me always ready to come to you with
clean hands and straight eyes.
So when life fades, as the fading sunset
my spirit may come to you
without shame.

►Pueblo Indian Prayer:
Hold on to what is good, even if it’s a handful of earth…
Hold on to what you believe, even if it’s a tree that stands by itself…
Hold on to what you must do, even if it’s a long way from here…
Hold on to your life, even if it’s easier to let go….
Hold on to my hand, even if I’ve gone away from you.

HURT

 

Johnny Cash’s last recording just 7 months before he died.

If you know an addict – of any kind – please show them this video.

Johnny Cash’s last interview:

Happiness is A Moral Issue

 

“Happiness is a moral issue.”

“Happiness is a serious problem.”

“We are as happy as we decide to be” – Abraham Lincoln

Feelings don’t matter, behavior is the measure.

“Behave it then you will feel it.”

Act religious, then you will feel religious.”

Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel ceiling, 1508-12 (Vatican)

The Women Around Jesus

On Sunday July 31, 2006 I had the honor to deliver the Homily for the All Souls Universal Catholic Church in Allen, Texas. The title of the Homily was “The Women Around Jesus” based on the Gospel of John 4:19-26, The Samaritan Woman At The Well.

All Souls Universal Catholic Church Altar

 

Sheila Graham

Sheila GrahamSheila Graham worked for Grace Communion International as a writer and editor. She has a master’s degree in theology.

Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective.Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective

Shawna R. B. Atteberry

Shawna R.B. Atteberry

 

I am an author, speaker, and theologian. I write both feminist theology and urban fantasy. My first book What You Didn’t Learn in Sunday School: Women Who Didn’t Shut Up & Sit Down was released in February 2013. I am now working on my second book, a compilation of sermons on the women in the Bible, and I recently finished my first novel, Mutability, a feminist vampire story (go to S. R. Atteberry to find out more about my fiction). I also speak at churches & conferences as well as preach. I have 15 years of experience in both writing and editing. I am an ordained minister. I have 17 years of experience as a pastor holding various associate positions and as a laypastor. My specialties are Biblical Studies, Feminist Theology, Spiritual Formation, and Christian Formation and Education. I hold an M. A. Theological Studies, and I’ve been writing on the women in the Bible and women in church history for the last 15 years.

 

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

 

 

CNS News Reports:

michio_kaku_wikipedia

(CNSNews.com) — Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles – which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies.

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” Kaku, author of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind, said in a 2013 Big Think video posted on YouTube.

“The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

String Theory “revolutionized” mathematics and physics by demonstrating a “super symmetry” in the universe. Kaku said it also explains gaps in the Big Bang theory.

“First of all, the Big Bang wasn’t very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn’t tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer,” the well-known physicist said in 2015.

“We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that’s String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord….

“Some people believe that maybe, just maybe, we have detected evidence of that umbilical cord.”

By Barbara Hollingsworth

Where Science And Religion Meet

 

The Daily Mail reports:

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist

  • Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
  • He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round
  • This means space and time don’t exist in the linear fashion we think it does
  • He uses the famous double-split experiment to illustrate his point
  • And if space and time aren’t linear, then death can’t exist in ‘any real sense’ either

By Victoria Woollaston

 

Most scientists would probably say that the concept of an afterlife is either nonsense, or at the very least unprovable.

Yet one expert claims he has evidence to confirm an existence beyond the grave – and it lies in quantum physics.

Professor Robert LanzaProfessor Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism teaches that death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness.

Professor Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism teaches death as we know it is an illusion. He believes our consciousness creates the universe, and not the other way round, and once we accept that space and time are ‘tools of our minds’, death can’t exist in ‘any real sense’ either

Professor Robert Lanza’s, pictured, theory is explained in his book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe

‘We think life is just the activity of carbon and an admixture of molecules – we live a while and then rot into the ground,’ said the scientist on his website.

Lanza, from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, continued that as humans we believe in death because ‘we’ve been taught we die’, or more specifically, our consciousness associates life with bodies and we know that bodies die.

His theory of biocentrism, however, explains that death may not be as terminal as we think it is.

Biocentrism is classed as the theory of everything and comes from the Greek for ‘life centre’.

It is the believe that life and biology are central to reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way round.

This suggests a person’s consciousness determines the shape and size of objects in the universe.

Lanza uses the example of the way we perceive the world around us. A person sees a blue sky, and is told that the colour they are seeing is blue, but the cells in a person’s brain could be changed to make the sky look green or red.

LANZA’S THEORY OF BIOCENTRISM AND THE AFTERLIFE

Biocentrism is classed as the Theory of Everything and comes from the Greek for ‘life centre’. It is the belief that life and biology are central to reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way round.

Lanza uses the example of the way we perceive the world around us.

A person sees a blue sky, and is told that the colour they are seeing is blue, but the cells in a person’s brain could be changed to make the sky look green or red.

Our consciousness makes sense of the world, and can be altered to change this interpretation.

The Universe

By looking at the universe from a biocentric’s point of view, this also means space and time don’t behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does.

In summary, space and time are ‘simply tools of our mind.’

Once this theory about space and time being mental constructs is accepted, it means death and the idea of immortality exist in a world without spatial or linear boundaries.

Theoretical physicists believe that there is infinite number of universes with different variations of people, and situations taking place, simultaneously.

Lanza added that everything which can possibly happen is occurring at some point across these multiverses and this means death can’t exist in ‘any real sense’ either.

Lanza, instead, said that when we die our life becomes a ‘perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.’

‘Bottom line: What you see could not be present without your consciousness,’ explained Lanza. ‘Our consciousness makes sense of the world.’

By looking at the universe from a biocentric’s point of view, this also means space and time don’t behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does. In summary, space and time are ‘simply tools of our mind.’

Once this theory about space and time being mental constructs is accepted, it means death and the idea of immortality exist in a world without spatial or linear boundaries.

Similarly, theoretical physicists believe there is infinite number of universes with different variations of people, and situations, taking place simultaneously.

Lanza cites the double-slit test, pictured, to backup his claims. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits, the particle goes through one slit or the other. If a person doesn’t watch it, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits simultaneously. This means its behaviour changes based on a person’s perception

HOW THE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS LANZA’S THEORY

Double slit Test

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.

Yet if a person doesn’t watch the particle, it acts like a wave.

This means it can go through both slits at the same time.

This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that the behaviour of the particle changes based on a person’s perception and consciousness.

Lanza added that everything which can possibly happen is occurring at some point across these multiverses and this means death can’t exist in ‘any real sense’ either.

Lanza, instead, said that when we die our life becomes a ‘perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.’

He continued: ‘Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.’

Lanza cited the famous double-slit experiment to backup his claims.

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.

Yet if a person doesn’t watch the particle, it acts like a wave, This means it can go through both slits at the same time.

This demonstrates that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and that behaviour of the particle changes based on a person’s perception and consciousness.

Lanza’s full theory is explained in his book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.

 

And then we have Dr. Nelson L. Price’s comments:

God, Quantum Physics, And The Bible

In our pragmatic state of mind we tend not to believe in what we cannot comprehend with our basis senses. Therefore, the idea of world conditions being different from those we know seems far fetched.

Quantum physics is a science presently challenging the scientific community much less the limited scientific knowledge of non-scientists. Trying to look up a comparatively simple definition of the subject is a challenge. Under “quantum physics” is a note it is based on “quantum theory.” There you find “quantum theory” is based on “quantum mechanics.” There the definition is: “theory of the mechanics of atoms, molecules, and other physical systems that are subject to the uncertainty principle.”

An overly simplistic description is it means coloring outside the scientific box as most of us know it.

Try this for example. Quantum physics suggests that quantum particles that make up atoms can leap distances without going through space. What? They can even change their fundamental qualities to evade detection. The amazing thing is there are scientists who understand this.

This science offers evidence that light particles can ignore time. Studious  people with knowledge in the field are convinced of it. 

Some persons of faith in the scientific community are saying this is opening the door to further comprehension of creation.

Theologian Paul Tillich commented, “The truth of faith cannot be confirmed by the latest physical or biological or psychological discoveries — as it cannot be denied by them.”

True, if it were confirmed it would not be faith. Also true the legitimacy of faith cannot be denied by science because not all is known about science as quantum physics is showing.

Quantum physics shows that there is a lot not known, a lot.

One basic law of logic is you can’t prove a negative. For example the negative “there is no God” can’t be proven. To prove there is no God a person would have to know all there is to know and in the total body of knowledge know there is not God.

If you know some person who professes to know so much they can assert with confidence there is no God run these questions by them.

Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a musk ox in Nome, Alaska?

Do you know how many gallons of water there are in the Pacific Ocean?

Do you know the sum total of all heavenly bodies?

Do you know what lies just outside the distance viewable by the most powerful telescope?

Do you know what things are invisible?

Do you know for certain light particles can’t ignore space?

What percent of all knowledge do you suppose you know?

Do you think that in that percentage of the unknown God could exist without your knowledge?

Blaise Pascal a man noted for his contribution to literature, mathematics, and science believed things people of his era thought ludicrous. Today those things are the norm. He wrote: “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God the Creator, through Jesus Christ.” That explains so many empty people.