Sunday, June 12, 2011 "God and Government"

Sunday, June 12, 2011

"God and Government"

First from Julie's Keyboard:

As I was thinking on something to share this week in the post, the reminder came to me of how important it is to be a student, or the Bible says a "workman," of the Word of God.

It seems the uncertainty of the times in which we live should create a stirring in the hearts of people to get to the truth of this life and all that could be understood in its regard.  Our Creator is the only One with all truth.  He's given us this truth through His Word, the Holy Bible.

There's a Scripture in II Timothy 2:14 that goes like this: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

This indicates to me that believers have a responsibility to get into the Word of God and find out what He's saying.  We should be a people of the Text.  Sometimes it's helpful to find great resources to help us in our study and "rightly divide the word of truth."  But, the greatest, and most trusted of any resource that can be found is the Holy Spirit.  He has promised to teach us and lead us into the truth.

This week as I was studying, I ran across a study tip from a fellow classmate as we were discussing the Scripture.  He said that often in his study time he would apply the use of this acronym "SPECK."  It goes something like this:

Is there a Sin to avoid?
Is there a Promise to behold?
Is there an Example to follow?
Is there a Command to obey?
Is there Knowledge to gain?

Just thought I'd share this with you.  It seems that a simple application of this line of questioning would definitely help us glean more understanding from passages we read in His Word.

Have a bless week,

Julie




******************************

"God and Government"

This week I fully intended to talk more about our earlier court views and cases. But Texas Gov. Rick Perry was in the news, he has invited the nation's governors to join him in a day of prayer to seek God's guidance to deal with the problems facing America. The day for prayer and fasting is planned for Aug. 6th in Houston. Perry urged governors in other states to also proclaim Aug. 6th as a day to pray for "unity and righteousness."  As a result he has received some support and at the moment at least three other Governors have agreed to make such a proclamation in their States as well.

As you can imagine, this is unsettling to the non-religious and proponents of the "Separation of Church and State" doctrine so prevalent in today's society. One such proponent stated that "Calling upon all Americans to embrace Perry's personal belief system is an insult to the millions of upstanding citizens who practice religions other than evangelical Christianity, as well as the millions of secular Americans who contribute to society without pushing their views on others, . . . Religion should be a private matter, especially for elected officials in a secular government."

Another said Perry's call "raises serious concerns about his commitment to the boundaries between religion and government."

This opposition to Gov. Rick Perry of course all comes from either a misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment or either purposely ignoring it's meaning to promote a specific alternate view.  So I deemed it necessary to take another look at the founding view of this Amendment that is so abused in today's society.

In doing so, for the sake of the opponents of a different view, I will not assert that a debate is not needed in our society to affirm wither or not this should still be our view, only that the current assertion being that our Founders originally proposed such a "Separation of Church and State" doctrine is a false and deceptive attestation.

First, what Gov. Perry is doing in this proclamation is fully in line with his Constitutional provisions under the United States Constitution.  Such proclamations have been made throughout our history, but we would now be made to believe that any reference of a religious nature by a public official is taboo under the intent of the 1st Amendment.

This of course is false when examined against our early history.  Signers of the United States Constitution George Read and Richard Bassett also directed the drafting of the Delaware constitution.  That constitution required, "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I,_____________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Other State constitutions were drafted with similar requirements for public service.  This establishes the understanding that though the Federal Government was restricted in such actions, the State Governments were not.  As strange as it may seem, it was the understanding at the time, though the 1st Amendment prohibited the Federal Government from instituting a state religion, each state could address such as they determined.  For those powers concerning religious activities were reserved to the states.  Amazingly, no establishment of a certain sect of Christianity occurred, but in all state constitutions they ascribed an acknowledgement of the Authority of God over the state Government. 

The House approved the "Northwest Ordinance" on July 21, 1789, the Senate approved it on August 4, 1789, this was the same Congress which was simultaneously framing the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment and was signed by the President August 7th.

This ordinance in the only section to address religion, coupled it with public education stating, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged"

This Federal Ordinance stated as one of the necessary elements for good government "religion" and that religion among such things as morality and knowledge would be forever encouraged.  One must realize that the wording of these documents were taken into much consideration before the language was drafted.  Therefore, the insertion of the word "religion" and "forever encouraged" were accepted through much consideration.  Remember, this was going on during the framing of the 1st Amendment to United States Constitution.

Assuming the Founders intent in that Amendment was as it is interpreted today, they were drafting a Federal Ordinance in violation of their own conscience.

When sighting affirmation for the current view of the 1st Amendment, most run the Jefferson and his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.  But unfortunately, they only sight 8 words out of that letter.

In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the Constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (alienable) rather than God-given (inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected.

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own as is reflected in his statement, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the (federal government) to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. The current view has regulated, restricted, and interfered with such expression, the resistance to Gov. Perry's proclamation is only one example.  It is regulating, restricting, and interfering with Gov. Perry's voluntary call to the people of (his) state to pray.  No one is compelled, punished, or demeaned for not complying.  His religions expression as well as those who would answer the call are restricted, regulated and interfered with.

By taking only this portion of the letter and not sighting it's entire content leaves the public with a vague and corrupted understanding of Jefferson's view on the 1st Amendment. 

(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.) - - - - Thomas Jefferson.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts or the Everson case in 1947, which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded, "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

The early courts understood the true meaning of Jefferson and the true intent of the 1st Amendment.  Unlike the courts today, the earlier courts understood Jefferson's letter to confirm that the Amendment was addressed to Congress, and to legislation.  It did nothing to prohibit a Governor from making a proclamation in (his / her) state.  The far reaching scope of the 1st Amendment today far exceeds it's original intent and purpose.  Jefferson himself stated, "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States"

It should also be noted the Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, (whom we now sight as the authoritative voice) but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of Church and State." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment, as is so frequently asserted, then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

But today the scope of our religious freedoms are embraced within that single phase.  I understand things change out of necessity, but many times they change out of neglect and irresponsible oversight. The necessary evolution of the 1st Amendment as well as others has built within it (the Constitution) a process, (though purposely difficult by design) by which we are to accomplish this. 

To make such revolutionary changes through assertion and adaptation of cultural changes does dishonor to ourselves as well as our forefathers.

For the sake of our nation and our posterity, let us diligently search out the foundation upon which our history and success has been built.

May God bless each of you,

David