Are We A Christian Nation?

What if you found yourself standing before a judge, for violating a ‘quiet’ law? The law stated, “In places of expected levels of quietness such as a church, library or theater, there is an expected level of quietness and those who violate this law are subject to prosecution under the law”….or something to that effect. The prosecutor in your case was prosecuting you for screaming in the middle of a movie. What did you feel compelled to scream that would be cause for your prosecution? “FIRE – THERE IS A FIRE”! Although your screams saved hundreds of people from a deadly situation by alerting them to the fact that their was a fire in the theater, the prosecutor decided to make a case against you because you still technically “broke the law”. Does this sound absolutely absurd to you? Would you have your lawyer argue the intent of the law, or the spirit in which the law was written did not take into consideration an act of civil disobedience that saved lives and therefore the framers of the language of this particular law would have not meant for this unintended consequence?

This same scenario has played out over the course of the past one hundred years as activist judges have ruled in court, based on their own interpretation of the law and worse, their interpretation of the Constitution and other documents created by our Founding Fathers.

Currently, when a new law or Amendment to a Constitution (State or Federal) is adopted, there is usually no documentation attached to the law that gives the citizens a look into the spirit in which the law was written. So, before us we have laws, that sometimes are unfortunately left open for interpretation, thus, giving judges more latitude in their decisions because there is no further explanation such as the example I gave above. If perhaps in my scenario there was documentation and a reason behind this law, the judge could have interpreted that the law was not meant to target people yelling for purposes of danger. However, this just may be a loophole that was left out in the law. So, if a judge wanted to “stick it to” a person, they could under this law.

Where am I going with this you ask? Well, the misnomer of the Separation of Church and State and other laws that were meant to protect our religious liberties. If our courts and judges desired a result other than the Separation of Church and State; which is one of the most egregious forms of judicial activism ever abused in this Country; they merely could have looked at the spirit of the law in which it was written. I could cite so many quotes from those who framed our Constitution and form of government that you would have to read for a month. But thankfully David Barton has written a book, which explains all of this much more eloquently than I could ever attempt. In his book, ‘Original Intent’, he gives an example of a ‘Holy Trinity Court’, which cited 13 similar cases as the one I described in the opening and where the court concluded, “the spirit of a law should always prevail over its letter.” They explain:

The legislators used general terms…. and thereafter, unexpectedly it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the Country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts under the circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within in the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

In other words what is the intent of the legislation, or to sum up the above statement, as the wise President Thomas Jefferson was quoted as admonishing Court Justice William Johnson:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And Justice James Wilson: “The first and governing maxim in interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

In other words, what was the intent of the Founding Fathers when the framed the Constitution? Specifically the First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

If the activist judges that created case law determining that this is meant to be interpreted as the ‘Separation of Church and State’ would have been honest in their dealings with this Amendment and recollected the spirit of intent that our Founding Fathers manifested in this document they would have come to the conclusion that it does not mean freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. In all the quotes of the Founding Fathers regarding the framing of our government the number one quoted source was the Bible. Does that sound like separation of church and state to you? When they included this Amendment it was to be free from persecution and to not have a state or federal sponsored religion like other Countries.

The Northwest Ordinance, Article III signed into law by President George Washington:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

So, do you think that activist judges purposely ignored the intent of our Founding Fathers which clearly by their own words and definition stated we are a Judeo-Christian Nation where people are free to practice or not practice their faith and created their own interpretation of our Constitution? Or do you think our Founding Fathers truly meant for us to be a secular Nation?

Whether you are a Christian or not, is your personal decision. However, don't let activist liberal judges and others re-write your Nation's history and hijack our Country.

In my next blog I will further discuss the Christian origins of our Nation and the history of education in America.