lisaannettestanley
Separation of Church & State. Checks & Balances on US Government and Paid Political Advertis
UPDATE: Russian Interference in our Electoral Process has nothing on the Election tampering on TBN. If Christian TV INSISTS ON PLAYING POLITICS, we should DEMAND that they PAY TAXES.
While it seems that the words "Separation of Church & State" don't appear anywhere in the Constitution, there are Legal Precedents that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to that effect.
There are, however, laws governing Paid Political Advertising.
It seems to me that Christian TV is one great big giant Paid Political Ad, Donald Trump being interviewed on Christian TV by Mike Huckabee IS NOT Separation of Church & State.
Trump's Bully Pulpit is poised to reach out from Church Pews ACROSS THE COUNTRY in the form of Christian TV. How can the Church justify turning a blind eye toward a BULLY???
So furiously LIVID about organized religion tampering with our Elections & FAILING TO PAY TAXES. This is an OUTRAGE. MAKE THEM PAY.
Separation of Church & State. Is it Time for Churches to Pay TAXES?
Yes There Is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State
It seems that to some people, if the words don’t explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the constitution.
Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term “separation of Church and State” may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.
Then there's this on US History.com
Finally in 1786, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, based on Jefferson`s 1779 draft, was passed by the General Assembly. It took the final step of forbidding the use of taxes to support any church, a position which was accepted for the entire United States by the adoption of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights a few years later.
During the debate over ratification of the constitution, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut wrote an article that was printed in December 1787, in which he defended the decision to forbid religious tests for public office:
Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience.
John Leland was a largely self-educated clergyman, born in Massachusetts in 1754. He ministered in Virginia as a young man before returning to Massachusetts in 1791. He was in Virginia during the ratification debate, which he opposed without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. During a long career, he consistently argued against established churches, and lived to see the Congregational Church disestablished in Massachusetts in 1823.
In 1791, Leland wrote a piece on why the government should not be involved in religion:
Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile it to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.
In 1809, Jacob Henry was elected to the North Carolina House of Commons in 1808. Being Jewish, he was unable to take the oath prescribed by law to take office when the house met in 1809. Despite the First Amendment, the North Carolina constitution at that time required that elected officials accept the truth of the Protestant religion. Another representative moved that he be refused his seat. Henry gave a stirring defense of his rights, which persuaded the North Carolina house to seat him.
The intent when the Bill of Rights was ratified was to interpret protection for freedom of speech according to the common law inherited from Britain. That body of law held that speech was not protected if it caused harm to the public welfare. In the early nineteenth century, an example of such harm would be a book that called into question the precepts of religion.
One such book, in the eyes of censors, was a book in French entitled, Sur la Creation du monde, un system d`organisation primitive, which concerned the origin of the world. In Philadelphia in 1814, the book was banned and criminal proceedings brought.
When Thomas Jefferson^ learned of this, he wrote a letter to N.G. Dufief, the bookseller in Philadelphia, in which he asked:
Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens ...