Building A Wall To Keep God Out

[Bro Bill]

Building A Wall To Keep God Out

by Bill Harper

Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it? Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it. So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered mortar, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered mortar, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither they that daubed it;

- Ezekiel 13:12-15, kjv:bible

The driving motive of church and state separationists is not "religious freedom" as they deceitfully claim but rather freedom from religion. Their ultimate goal is the cutting asunder of anything that connects the American people with our Christian heritage and to replace it with a godless philosophy of secular humanism. If they have their way any reference to God will be removed from all public institutions and even the very mention or acknowledgment of God. If they are successful then that means the words "In God We Trust", our national motto, will be removed from all our currency, from above the speaker's podium in the chamber of Congress in the U.S. Capitol and from every building and monument across the land. It means that the words "one nation UNDER GOD" will be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance. Their evil plan and design is clearly to build a wall that will keep Christian influence and God Himself out of our society and culture. This is not what the founding fathers envisioned for our nation nor is it what Thomas Jefferson meant when he cited the words of a Puritian minister in declaring "a wall of separation between church and state."

The building of such a wall is a socialist idea and dream. Those who would build such a wall will often mix the blood of God's people through persecution in their mortar. However like the Berlin Wall, erected by the atheistic communists of the Soviet Union and East Germany to keep people enslaved to communist ideology and from immigrating to the Christian West, this wall will be broken down and destroyed as well. As the walls of Jericho fell to the ground before Joshua and the children of Israel by the power of God, so any wall built by man to keep God out of the affairs of men and nations will fall and not stand. God Himself will bring it down if necessary. Personally, I think this wall will collapse on its own because its foundation of humanistic philosophies is weak and its mortar untempered by the truth of God's Word. Nothing will be left of this wall either except perhaps a few ruins to remind future generations of the folly of a few wicked men attempting to wall God out of government which He Himself has ordained in the first place and keeping people in need of salvation from knowing Him and thus remaining separated from Him for eternity.

The only thing that can separate man from His Creator is sin. Thank God that He has already broken down that wall of partition and has bridged the separation from God caused by sin by the cross of Jesus Christ.

[Iconic]

The driving motive of church and state separationists is not "religious freedom" as they deceitfully claim but rather freedom from religion. Their ultimate goal is the cutting asunder of anything that connects the American people with our Christian heritage and to replace it with a godless philosophy of secular humanism.

Who is this 'They' that you are talking about? People from a broad spectrum of religious and philosophical beliefs support the concept of church/state separation. Yet you are lumping them all together with Secular Humanists, a group that comprises less than 1% of the U.S. population.

I think the concept of 'freedom from religion' is a good idea. I want freedom from any religion or philosophy that seeks to dictate how I may live. Catholics want 'freedom from religion' from Protestants; they in turn want 'freedom from religion' from Muslims, who want 'freedom from religion' from Jews, etc. The list is endless.


If they have their way any reference to God will be removed from all public institutions and even the very mention or acknowledgment of God. If they are successful then that means the words "In God We Trust", our national motto, will be removed from all our currency, from above the speaker's podium in the chamber of Congress in the U.S. Capitol and from every building and monument across the land. It means that the words "one nation UNDER GOD" will be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance.


You might be more convincing if a reference was provided. I can't think of an organization that wants "any reference to God will be removed from all public institutions and even the very mention or acknowledgment of God."

Please remember that "In God We Trust" was not our original motto and the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words 'under god'.


Their evil plan and design is clearly to build a wall that will keep Christian influence and God Himself out of our society and culture. This is not what the founding fathers envisioned for our nation nor is it what Thomas Jefferson meant when he cited the words of a Puritian minister in declaring "a wall of separation between church and state." The building of such a wall is a socialist idea and dream. Those who would build such a wall will often mix the blood of God's people through persecution in their mortar.

So far your reasoning does not support the idea that church/state separation supporters are evil. And I find that Jefferson's words fully support the backers of church/state separation

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State."

[SisterNChrist]

I know why the words "In God We Trust" was stamped onto our currency. These words can be found in the last stanza of our American Anthem--"The Stars-Spangled Banner".

It is the ACLU, Bro Bill is referring to. And I will continue adding God to our Pledge of Allegiance too.:preach

[Iconic]

I know why the words "In God We Trust" was stamped onto our currency. These words can be found in the last stanza of our American Anthem--"The Stars-Spangled Banner".

It is the ACLU, Bro Bill is referring to. And I will continue adding God to our Pledge of Allegiance too.:preach

What does the ACLU have to do with the original post?

[Tron4JC]

Who is this 'They' that you are talking about? People from a broad spectrum of religious and philosophical beliefs support the concept of church/state separation. Yet you are lumping them all together with Secular Humanists, a group that comprises less than 1% of the U.S. population.

I think the concept of 'freedom from religion' is a good idea. I want freedom from any religion or philosophy that seeks to dictate how I may live. Catholics want 'freedom from religion' from Protestants; they in turn want 'freedom from religion' from Muslims, who want 'freedom from religion' from Jews, etc. The list is endless.



You might be more convincing if a reference was provided. I can't think of an organization that wants "any reference to God will be removed from all public institutions and even the very mention or acknowledgment of God."

Please remember that "In God We Trust" was not our original motto and the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the words 'under god'.



So far your reasoning does not support the idea that church/state separation supporters are evil. And I find that Jefferson's words fully support the backers of church/state separation

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State."


The first amendment limited only Congress on this matter.

Have you read all the original 13 state constitutions?

[Iconic]

The first amendment limited only Congress on this matter.

You are correct, but over one hundred years out of date. The fourteenth amendment incorporated most of the Bill of Rights to the states and citizens.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&



Have you read all the original 13 state constitutions?

No. I hope you aren't implying that state laws trump federal laws.

[Tron4JC]

You are correct, but over one hundred years out of date. The fourteenth amendment incorporated most of the Bill of Rights to the states and citizens.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&




No. I hope you aren't implying that state laws trump federal laws.

We are here speaking of original intent. The original intent was not to keep states from promoting Christianity. It was to prevent the central government from promoting one denom over another. The founders fear a central church ala church of England.

I didn't say state laws trump federal laws, especially since federal laws then don't forbid the state laws that existed then.

Especially when the same founders who gave us the US Constitution and Bill of Rights also gave us the state constitutions.

The US Constitution did not forbid the US government from promoting Christianity. But forbid it from making a centralized state church.

That can be seen by the fact that those same founders saw no problem with saying religion and morality shall be encouraged forever in the NW Ordinance.

[Iconic]

We are here speaking of original intent. The original intent was not to keep states from promoting Christianity. It was to prevent the central government from promoting one denom over another. The founders fear a central church ala church of England.

<snip>

The US Constitution did not forbid the US government from promoting Christianity. But forbid it from making a centralized state church.


Original intent doesn't mean very much anymore except to historians. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, it has been amended many times, thus altering its 'original intent'.

The Establishment clause of the first amendment is now interpreted as the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion by Congress and the preference of one religion over another. Numerous Supreme Court cases document this interpretation. Here are two.

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10355

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html


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."

[Tron4JC]

Original intent doesn't mean very much anymore except to historians. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, it has been amended many times, thus altering its 'original intent'.

The Establishment clause of the first amendment is now interpreted as the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion by Congress and the preference of one religion over another. Numerous Supreme Court cases document this interpretation. Here are two.

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10355

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html


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."


You are stating as how secular courts since 1962 interpret the first amendment on religion.

You say original intent means nothing?

Original intent means alot!

It means what the founders mean by what they say.

Suppose you say something.

And then someone claim what you said to mean the very opposite of what you said and impute that to what you said. How would you feel?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are written with principles of law in them. They have specific meanings as intended by the founders.

None of the founders, not even Jefferson, held to Christianity should be kept out of public policy especially concerning morals.

If the courts contradict what the founders think on what their intent was by what they said in the first amendment or whatever else, the courts are wrong.

[Tron4JC]

By the way, I don't hold to we can go back to the way it was, and I am not exactly for school sponsor prayers, either, since I see alot of dangers in that. Such are RCCs doing prayers and we have to have Marian devotion with that.

And I am not saying we should go back to the times of the founders in regards to how states saw religious matters.

I believe in freedom of religion for all relgions, since I believe Christianity is spread by witnesing, not by using the government.

But let's not revise what the founders actually meant when they wrote the first amendment.