Separation of Church and State Law III. The 1947 Everson decision lays the groundwork for removal of God from all civil government affairs (for a pluralistic society that rejects the God of the Bible) by adding a new twist to the First Amendment “establishment clause” while still recognizing the original meaning of that clause: The STATE SUPPORTING CHILDREN IS NOT A VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WALL OF PROTECTION THAT MUST BE KEPT HIGH AND IMPREGNABLE AND TAX EXEMPTION IS JUST BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY. https://facebook/photo.php?fbid=659263674193852&set=a.653699521416934.1073741832.100003306778371&type=1&permPage=1 jeraldfinney.wordpress/tag/walz-v-tax-commission-of-the-city-of-new-york/ Separation of Church and State Law Romans 13:12: The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. [...]The majority gave its interpretation of the meaning of the First Amendment: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: 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. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ Reynolds v. United States, supra at 164…” (Ibid., pp. 15-16). [Emphasis mine.] [...] Justice Scalia was joined in the minority opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas, and Justice Kennedy. He writes, “I shall discuss, first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false; second, why today’s opinion extends the scope of that falsehood even beyond prior cases; and third, why even on the basis of the Court’s false assumptions the judgment here is wrong” (Ibid., p. 885). His first point should have been that the one true God, the God of the Old and New Testaments, desires to be recognized as Sovereign over the nation. This portion of the opinion demonstrates that the Founders leaving this issue unresolved is speeding the nation more quickly toward God’s final judgment. He quotes selected historical facts to support his position—most of those facts would point to the recognition of a sovereign God over the nation and not to the interference with freedom of religion and conscience by the state; that is, not to the conclusion that government can favor religious practice. [...] The Constitution did not require those acts and proclamations, but allowed them. So long as God and His Word were at least respected by the majority, God and His Word were uplifted. God and His Word presently are respected and followed by only a very small minority of the population. Justice Scalia then analyzes the majority opinion showing how it is logically inconsistent with the facts and the law, how the majority changes the Lemon test in order to arrive at the desired result (Ibid., pp. 900-903), how the displays were constitutional “even accepting the Court’s Lemon-based premises” (Ibid., pp. 903-908), and how “the Courts conclusion that the Counties exhibited the Foundation’s Displays with the purpose of promoting religion is doubtful” (Ibid., pp. 908-912). V. Conclusion Declarations within the Constitution that God and His principles are to be honored by the nation, and that the goal of the nation is to glorify God would have served useful purposes. The document itself would have glorified God and pointed people to truth. But eventually, just as unbelieving men have attacked God, the Bible, and truth, so would they have attacked God and such a Constitution. Inevitably, lost men would have prevailed, albeit not as quickly and easily as they have under the present Constitution, and the nation would have rejected the fact of the sovereignty of God. The nation would someday have been where it is today. God gave man free will to make his own choices. No man can be forced to honor God. Most men and all nations prior to Armageddon (all includes the United States) reject and will reject God. Separation of Church and State Law Romans 13:12: The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Search Search Home » Posts tagged Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York Tag Archives: Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York Separation of God and state: 1947-2007 January 18, 2013 10:24 pm / Leave a comment Jerald Finney Copyright © January 18, 2012 Left click one of the following link for easy access to all articles on this website: Complete listing of articles on “Separation of Church and State Law” blog Or Contents Recommended websites: The Old Time Way; Old Paths Baptist Church Recommended reading: Book Reviews (Click to see reviews); also, Books page of “Church and State Law” Website Note. This is an edited version on Section V, Chapter 4 of God Betrayed. Contents: I. Introduction II. The ACLU’s attacks on the recognition of God in state affairs III. The 1947 Everson decision lays the groundwork for removal of God from all civil government affairs (for a pluralistic society that rejects the God of the Bible) by adding a new twist to the First Amendment “establishment clause” while still recognizing the original meaning of that clause IV. An analysis of “religion clause” cases after Everson which have systematically removed the God of the Bible from practically all civil government affairs V. Conclusion Posts about Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York on Separation of Church and State Law jeraldfinney.wordpress Posts about Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York written by Jerald Finney
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:38:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015