No Affiliation Alliance

The Court, The Law and the Separation of Church from State

seaparation of church from state bannerThe argument about the separation of church from state seems to be a dispute more to what is not stated in the Constitution than to what is stated, with both, the atheist and religious argument focusing on the subject of ambiguity. This is due to the misrepresentation by the court; that the Bill of Rights is a guideline for their decision making process assumed by the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.

To fully understand the meaning of constitutional text, it is necessary to understand the original intent of the Constitution of the United States, with the first understanding, that the authorities originally granted to the federal Congress had no jurisdiction over the states, but was originally established to be an entirely separate system constrained and limited to the governing of the common union organization of trade and commerce.

So why would anyone claiming to have the slightest ability of jurisprudence claim such a ranking to judge the use of a document that: A) did not end the institution of state church because: B) the Bill of Rights did not evolve until fifteen years after the institution was eradicated, and C) was never intended or expected to be used as a guideline for interpretation because: D) it served only to separate the jurisdictions of state authority, from the authorities of the Common Union organization: an organization created exclusively to be the agent of the state republics in matters of international trade and interstate commerce. This debate was the foundation of the entire dispute between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist on whether the new government organization would have the authorities of a national government, or remain a limited trade organization, with no direct authority over state affairs.

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the power of 501px-Reproduction-of-the-1805-Rembrandt-Peale-painting-of-Thomas-Jefferson-New-York-Historical-Society_1the federal government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies” (Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address).

So if the Bill of Rights was is not the intended guideline for judgment in case laws; then which documents are? Would it not be the documents that set the original precedence that ended the institution of State Church?

The Massachusetts Constitution ratified Sept. 5, 1780 and is the only functional original state Constitution still in existence clearly states in the construction of the American brand of republic the following:

Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. (The first state constitutions are the blue print used to design the federal government)

The affect the miss-representation of the Fourteenth Amendment has had has reduced the standards of religious liberty to statutory rights by replacing the principals of moral foundation, with a conscience of judicial activism that began in 1896 with the insertion of dissenting opinion into the process of judicial review.

The dispute over the separation of church from state does not evolve from the understatement of constitutional text, but rather evolves from the overstatement of judicial authority; that it is the ability of a judge to change the original intent of a law by court decision, undermining the purpose of political debate and the eliminating of the checking mechanism that protects people from arbitrary law.

The assumption of discretionary authority was always limited to the operation of government department and government functions within the boundaries set by the Constitution. Constitutional and constructional authorities, in particular the extension of judiciary jurisdictions, require a written text to change the limits of jurisdiction. This is a constructional checking mechanism that cannot be loop holed without fracturing the intent of the mechanism which is to protect people, industry and commerce from frivolous and obnoxious laws.

The Constitution states clearly that no Post Ex-facto laws can be made and a reasonable question arises from this ability of the court to change a law from its original intent: If an individual or business finds them being sued or prosecuted for a matter of law, enters the court in full compliance of the existing law, and the court having the ability to change the original intent of Law with a broadened or expanded interpretation; would it be Post Ex-facto if that person entering the court in full compliance of the original law, is now responsible for damages and further prosecution upon leaving the court under the newly expanded interpretation???

It is the modern argument of intellectuals that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights of the United States into the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

This argument fails on two points, first is: If the intent of the amendment was to revoke the states exclusive jurisdiction of the first ten amendments; for the amendment to be in compliance with the statutes of Constitution, the amendment would need to contain a text stating this intent. (There are three precedents in our Constitution establishing this).

Second is that even if the intellectual arguments were correct, a set of modalities established by Justice John Marshal in 1805 Marbury_v_Madison_John_Marshall_by_Swatjester_croprequiring the judge to follow specific protocol during the process of judicial review distinguishes judging the law from making the law fully contradicting their argument.

The checks and balances systems are multi-performance links at many levels mingling between state to federal and government to Constitution. This is why the Fourteenth Amendment is a preliminary argument; because if a constitutional amendment increases the jurisdiction of a branch of government the checking mechanism also is required to be adjusted to compensate; this was not done with the Fourteenth Amendment and contradicts the original intent of the Constitution that forms a limited system of government.Below are the six sources of standard that sets the limitations of judicial review to be used by the Supreme Court, to include all lower courts in making decisions. All decisions in every case whether it is criminal or property must follow this guideline to define the difference between judging and making the law.

Though this list is merely a statute of policy, the constraints of Article III that establish the separation of the judiciary from the legislative branches does require the use of this guideline to maintain the courts compliance to constructional protocol to accommodate the checks and balances and separation of powers which are constructional and are beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to change without a written text stating specifically the change in jurisdiction of that branch.

1) Historical: Which relies on the intentions of the framers and those participating in the congressional conventions ratifying the Constitution and the inclusion of historical documentation in the foundation of our system of government.The history of intent (precedence of law) cannot be set aside under any circumstance in a representative-democracy until it has the approval of the states and people.

Supreme Court Justice John Marshal

Supreme Court Justice John Marshal

2)Textual: Which is looking to the meaning of the words of the Constitution alone to find the original intent of law, and not as they would be interpreted by an average person today.

3) Structural: Of which is inferring structural rules from the relationships mandated between the different bodies of government to include limitations, separations and the purpose of the checks and balances system in regards to ascending authorities on laws of Constitution, federal, state, county and local municipalities. This also includes jurisdictional boundaries.

4) Doctrinal: which is the application of rules generated by precedent established by common law and the strict adherence to maintain their original intent until they are changed by the legislative process with written law.

5) Ethical rules deriving from those moral commitments of the American ethos that are reflected in the Constitution (First Amendment) and established by the original documents that ended the institution of State Church.

6) Prudential: Which is the courts discretion seeking to balance the cost and benefits of a particular rule.

A modality is the way in which a proposition is characterized as true or relevant…otherwise known as circumstantial based upon presented evidence of fact and the application of the law to the circumstance of argument by legal representation. The case law is judged by the meaning of the law – The law is not judged by the argument of case.

The Documents that Ended the Institution of State Church

To understand the three principals behind the separation of church from state, the actual documents that were involved must be reviewed. These documents are compiled in the text book; “First State Constitutions of the Original Thirteen States” by Robert Marcoccio. It can be found in these documents the details on how the institution was ended and on how to preserve the separation.

The first standard set was the establishing of the state authorities, the denouncing of the authority of Parliament and King George III, and the declaration of rights which each of these constitutions contain. Each state designed its own structure of legislature establishing the American brand of representative-democracy with three distinct branches consisting of an executive, two houses of legislatures and a judicial system each with distinct boundaries.

Note that this three branch system was later adapted to the federalist system; where the Confederate trade organization of union (1781-1789) had lacked an executive and judiciary branch. The ideal of the American political structure relies upon the separation of jurisdictions between counties and state and state and federal authorities.

This design was considered best because of the variances in religious and cultural standards with the understanding that nature of man as with all things is factional and it is better to manage the needs of people and industry from region to region than to rely on one nationalistic system that would always leave one third in minority to live under oppressive law.

“Nature has constituted utility to man the standard and test of virtue. Men living in different countries, under different circumstances, different habits and regimens, may have different utilities; the same act, therefore, may be useful and consequently virtuous in one country which is injurious and vicious in another differently circumstanced” ( Thomas Jefferson Letter to Thomas Law, 1814.

To place in proper perspective Jefferson’s reference of “different countries,” I should point out that each of the states at this time were in fact separate and sovereign republic countries. The entity of national citizenship did not exist until after the Fourteenth Amendment that created the status of federal citizenship in regards to emancipation.

It is this status of national citizenship that the federal government assumes gives it the authority to regulate our civil liberties when it was in its original intent only suppose to extend the jurisdiction of the court to hear cases that were formerly out of its jurisdiction regarding law and equity and not intended to allow the federal government to delve into every detail of state affairs.

DeKalb_County_IN_Court_HouseFor the court to enter into matters of civil privacy the Fourteenth Amendment would need to have its jurisdiction increased by a written text that would state this new inclusion into its jurisdiction. This ambiguity is where the assumption of unauthorized authority breaches the standard to maintain the separation of church and state established by the documents of the first state constitutions.

The first state Constitution to include provisions regarding religion came from the state of New Jersey ratified July 3, 1776.

Article XVIII states:

That no person shall ever, within this colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any pretense whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.

The New Jersey Constitution continues the explanation of religious rights in Article XIX with the text stating:

That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this province, in preference to another; and that no protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principals; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

New Jersey was one of four provinces that did not have a state religion prior to declaring statehood. The references to protect the Protestant religion is pointed because this was recognized as being the religion of the King and Tory loyalist who were often required to swear oaths of allegiance for the cause of liberty during the course of the revolution throughout the colonies.

The state of Delaware contains in it’s Constitution the textual statement in Article 29:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another; and free_249955no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this State, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.

The current government attempts to undermine established religious doctrine by redefining moral principals under civil authority. The institution of political correctness is still an endorsement of religion that are expressed by atheist, metaphysical, spiritual and philosophical denominations – do no harm – do no wrong – is still moral principal and the courts regard it as so. The point is; the government has taken preference of one religious belief over another and this violates the separation of Church from state. The one firm recipe in maintaining the equal protection of religious worship and belief; is for government, especially the court to have no opinion and remain neutral.

In the first State Constitution of Virginia the text of Articles 15 and 16 of the declaration of rights suggested that free government depends upon the elected official’s moral foundation to recognize his duty in protecting the civil rights of the state inhabitants.

15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

The Pennsylvania state constitution adds to the summary of separation of church from state in Article 2 of its declaration of rights with:

1. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of John_Dickinson_portraittheir own consciences and understanding: and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who would acknowledge the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or particular mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power over whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

This statement is important because it specifically declares the boundaries of both extremes in the protections of a person who does not believe in religion or holds another denomination of God cannot be forced to participate in a religious ceremony not his own, but also declares that a person who does support religious worship and belief in God cannot be deprived of the right, to the celebration of public worship and mode of belief cannot be disqualified, because another does not choose to participate.

Then again in Section 45 of the Pennsylvania “plan or frame of government” it in details a further guide to the establishing the separation of Church from State with:

Sect. 45. Laws for the encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in force, and provision shall be made for their due execution: And all religious societies or bodies of men heretofore united or incorporated for the advancement of religion and learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities and estates which they were accustomed to enjoy, or could of right have enjoyed, under the laws and former constitution of this state.

When the new state republics convened in convention (1787-1789), each brought with them the attributes from their own state constitutions. To understand the perimeters being established to end and maintain the separation of the Church from the State each of the contributions in text evolving all these state constitutions are to be considered in every judgment made by the court. Speculation is not a liberty of the judiciary having it a mandate to refer back to all precedence of law for guidance with the most predominate order being the separation of jurisdiction between the states and the federal government of the common union of trade and commerce created by the Bill of Rights. The separation of the Church from the State is amplified by the Treaty of Tripoli negotiated under President John Adams in 1797 in the following article of that treaty.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or treaty of tripollitranquility of Mussel men – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Keep in mind the original intent of the Constitution of the United States common union of commerce. It is a business entity and not the direct representative of people, and is given its authority by the states to act as their agents in international trade treaty. Many atheists use this statement to argue that the Federal Government cannot display or endorse religious ceremony on public land or property. Instead it should be the argument that supports the maintaining the separation of religious jurisdiction between State and Federal.

Other first constitutions further define the perimeters of separation as the state of Maryland adds a long text in regards to religious standard involving the State authority:

33.That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under color of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, glebes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever. And all acts of assembly, lately passed, for collecting monies for building or repairing particular churches or chapels of ease, shall continue in force, and be executed, unless the legislature shall, by act, supersede or repeal the same: but no county court shall assess any quantity of tobacco, or sum of money, hereafter, on the application of any vestrymen or church-wardens; and every incumbent of the church of England, who hath remained in his parish, and performed his duty, shall be entitled to receive the provision and support established by the act, entitled “An act for the support of the clergy of the church of England, in this province,” till the November court of this present year to be held for the county in which his parish shall lie, or partly lie, or for such time as he hath remained in his parish, and performed his duty.

34. That every gift, sale, or devise of lands, to any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or to any religious sect, order or denomination, or to or for the support, use or benefit of, or in trust for, any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or any religious sect, order or denomination; and every gift or sale of goods, or chattels, to go in succession, or to take place after the death of the seller or donor, or to or for such support, use or benefit; and also every devise of goods or chattels to or for the support, use or benefit of any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or any religious sect, order, or denomination, without the leave of the Legislature, shall be void; except always any sale, gift, lease or devise of any quantity of land, not exceeding two acres, for a church, meeting, or other house of worship, and for a burying ground, which shall be improved, enjoyed or used only for such purpose, or such sale, gift, lease, or devise, shall be void.

35. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this state, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this convention or the legislature of this state, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

As the state Constitutions begin to evolve we see a graduation in the explanations into the separation of church from the state and in the North Carolina Constitution ratified December 18, 1776 we find these statements of text:

19. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.

21. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.

31. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the senate, house of commons, or council of state, while he continues in the exercise of his pastoral function.

32. That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this state.

34. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this state, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretense whatsoever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment.
44. That the declaration of rights is hereby declared to be part of the constitution of this state, and ought never to be violated on any pretense whatsoever.

The articles from the Maryland constitution demonstrate that the state has the authority to protect itself from the acts of clergy, priest, ministers or their congregations who use their religion to

Thomas Johnson First Governor of Maryland 1776

Thomas Johnson First Governor of Maryland 1776

shield them from acts of treason or sedition. This gives defense for government to protect individuals from persecution of religions that contradict the Christian faith remembering that the first settlers in America where exiles from these same countries because of their religious belief and worship.

The ideal of one religion under one government is absurd and unachievable without subscribing to use of genocide to cleanse all that do not comply and since all things and species in nature are factional, the most practical system is our current system of federal; that protects the individual right to preference of worship and belief or not; with the limitation to the First amendment protection being defined not as unlimited, but limits the use of a religious doctrine, or other belief in creation from claiming religious immunity as an excuse to threaten the security of state or persecute other members of this society. First Amendment protection requires members of all denominations of established and other beliefs to demean themselves to the law of the land which advocates tolerance, and not constraint over another individuals preference. The United states of America was formed as a sanctity against religious and political oppression and these liberties are again being aggressively attacked by the same countries and societies many of the inhabitants fled here to escape using the Supreme Court of misinterpretation.

The state of Georgia’s Constitution ratified February 5, 1777 states this:

56. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the state; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher, or teachers, except those of their own profession.

62. No clergyman, of any denomination, shall be allowed a seat in the legislature.

The New York Constitution ratified April 20, 1777 had the entire Declaration of Independence included in its preamble denouncing the authority of parliament and King George III:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

We therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

8. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote, shall, if required by the returning officer or either of the inspectors, take an oath, or if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of allegiance to the state.

35. [….]That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.[….]

38. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind: Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

39. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this state.

The state of Massachusetts, the principal factor in the initiation of the Revolution, chose to wait until September 5, 1780 before ratification of its first Constitution; which is the only of the first Constitutions that is still in effect presently. It its preamble it states:

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of his providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, DO agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS.

II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.[….] And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect, or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

The Encouragement of Literature.

WISDOM, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

Chapter V Art. 1 […];and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, superiority, preeminence, authority, dispensing or other power, in any matter, civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this commonwealth, except the authority and power which is or may be vested by their constituents in the congress of the United States;[…]

In the Massachusetts Constitution the need for public worship is recognized and protected concluding that government constraint over display of seasonal public worship is in contradiction to the protection of religious preference. With religion and moral principle being the foundation of civil society(often referred to as the several states), it is the states duty to encourage the display and participation in worship of God, religion and benevolence. The restriction of public display of worship is regarded as being oppressive to the happiness and security of the people. It is the forcible requirement of an individual by either the state or church in any specific ceremony that is restricted, unless the individual chooses by his own free will to participate. It is also the constraint and limitation by individuals who claim public worship is offensive to them to limit and constrain the belief of others that also is contradictory of the protection of preference of worship.

The state of Rhode Island did not have a first Constitution until 1820, but in its Charter we find an explanation regarding the expected right to religious worship as follows:

[….]and do hereby publish, grant, ordain and declare, that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be anyway molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion, who do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious commencements, throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others, any law, statute, or clause, therein contained, or to be contained, usage or custom of this realm, to the contrary hereof, in any wise, notwithstanding. And that they may be in the better capacity to defend themselves, in their just rights and liberties against all the enemies of the Christian faith, and others, in all respects, we have further thought fit, and at the humble petition of the persons aforesaid are graciously pleased to declare, that they shall have and enjoy the benefit of our late act of indemnity and free pardon, as the rest of our subjects in other our dominions and territories have;

On May 4 1776 the state of Rhode Island amended to their Charter a denunciation of the King of England and out line to establish the three branch system of American government and the statement below in regards to the separation of church from state.

It is for this reason these documents are a necessary part of education to understand the fundamental principles that establish our system of legislation that makes it different from the European brand of democracy. It is these combined statements of separation of church from state that are meant to be the guideline for the court to judge the case law to meet original intent and not the Bill of Rights of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment only increased the jurisdiction of the court to hear cases it was not allowed hearing prior; it had no intent to grant an authority to change the original intent of law or to exchange the system from federalism to nationalism.

The constitution admits not of religious establishments, any further than depends upon the voluntary choice of individuals. All men professing one Supreme Being is equally protected by the laws, and no particular sect can claim preeminence: From hence it is that benevolence, hospitality, and dissembled honesty remarkably characterize the people.

From these documents the defining perimeters of separation of Church from State are assessed to be: That all citizens have the right to preference of belief and worship according to their own conscience. People can not be forced to attend or to support financially any church or religion by the state nor can they use the excuse of their own belief to persecute another or threaten the security of the state. Nor can a church or religion claim immunity to treason or sedition against the state or people.That the administration of laws must be equal regardless of belief. That it is the duty of good government to encourage seasonal public display and worship. That religion could not be used to pose a threat to the community or others. And that religion was not an exemption to disregard civil law.That the government can not support the denomination of any one religion over another (and atheism, spiritualism and metaphysical beliefs are recognized by the court as religion that do not believe in a single supreme being or creator). It is not the authority of the government to make law that is deviant to the principles of religious doctrine or moral principal. That the laws in regards to religion are under the control of people and not civil authority.

Filed Under: Issues and Articles

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Comments are closed.