Separating or Severring?

"The Walls of the Separation of Church and State"
The well know phrase thrown into the air to justify those that believe Christianity should not be instituted in the American public falls down hard on the heads of Christians. It hurts, but do we know why? Does anyone know why this statement is constitutionally wrong? Wait, did I just say constitutionally wrong? "Isn't it in the constitution?" Many may think so, but the aswer is a resounding NO! I myself haven't understood this concept until just last week, and what a revelation it was. Justice Rehnquist absolutely explains this the best in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jafree

People contend that this is the intent of the 1st ammendment, that Church and State must be separated to all degrees, such a fine line being drawn between the two. But I want to draw your attention to the header picture. Do you notice Thomas Jefferson to the left of the Bill of Rights? I find this ironic, being supported in Rehnquist's reasoning for this phrase. This phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson, but not in the Constitutional Convention. In fact, it was in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. It was written 14 years after the institution of the 1st ammendment. Furthermore, Jefferson was not present in the United States when this ammendment was verified, because he was in France. Let's review the facts shall we? 1. Phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson 2. In a letter to a church 3. 14 years after the 1st ammendment, 4.Jefferson was in France when the 1st amendment was instituted. So in what context did this phrase appear that makes it so misunderstandably crucial in our courtrooms today?

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Ammendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by congress and ratified by the states. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Ammendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary hisory as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Ammendment." -Rehnquist.

So we see here that Jefferson is not the man to look to if we want to know the riginal intent of the 1st Ammendment. The only way we may really know what the 1st ammendment was meant to accomplish is by looking to the actual people who wrote it. These would be, a few for example, James Madison (key proposer and writer of these Ammendments), Mr. Sylvester, Mr. Vining, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Carroll, etc.
Being thousands of miles away in France would make it impossible in that time, where mail took weeks in the states, months across the world, for Jefferson to have had any say in the founding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were proposed by the states because all but three states refused to accept the Constitution lest they had "ground rules" to ensure the prohibition of Tyranny in the newfound America.

Government is a touchy thing. So hard is it to answer every question alluded to it, so we must think first, and only, that to answer our questions we must read the words spoken by those who penned the rules. Where do you look when you have questions about a product you have purchased? Would you believe what your neighbor says about it, or would you call the manufacturer and see why it is malfunctioning? obviously, the one who created it knows it best. Same being true of our relationship with God. Who knows better than He who created you?

The Courts have been in place for oh, somewhere around c.1787. For 150 years no one used this phrase as a basis for their case in court. The first time it was ever uttered in a courtroom was 1947, Everson v. Board of Education. So it has been misconstrued for the past 60 years, versus the 150 years prior. Let me just say that cases seem to have gotten rougher and significantly more confusing in the past 60 years than in those prior. Do you think this could be because we have read to much into, and become too sensitive of the real issues?
Their (founders) actions reveal their intent. If it was the intent of Madison and his others to prohibit Christianity from being entangled within the state, tell my why then, did they the next morning pass a law to hire a minister to perform their opening prayers in the House?

You see, the real purpose in fabricating this Ammendment was to procure the evasion of a national denomination. Each state had been given federal permission to establish a state denomination. But for the federal government to favor one sect above another was sure to result in another England. Didn't they break free from that? Naturally, they wanted to be sure that it would not happen again.
They never intended for religious materials not to be displayed. The Ten Commandments displayed in front of a courtroom is in no wise a breech of this law. Prayer in schools is not threatening other religions. The point is that you are free to practice your religon. Buddhist, Pagan, Christian all have equal rights, with the difference being that our nation was founded on Christianity. Were it not for Christian men who fought and worked for this country, we would not be free. These groups and organizations are not satisfied that everyone gets free rights. They only see that one is real and oh how it angers them. As a Christian, knowing the one true Way, I can say that they are jealous. They wouldn't harass us if we weren't a threat. I love when people say, if the definition of an Agnostic or pagan is one who believes in no God, then why do they care if we talk about Him. If they know in their heart that He does not exist, then shouldn't they only view it as foolishness to be dismissed?

Several propositions were made for what the wording of the 1st Ammendment should be, and I think if you finish off by reading these, you may see in the words their intent, and then judge for yourself.

"All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free excercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others."
Virginia and North Carolina 3 id., at 659; id., at 244

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established , nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
James Madison's proposal. Id., at 434

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights on conscience be infringed." Committee revision of Madison's proposal. Id., at 729

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or rohibiting the free excercise of religion. " Senate September 3, 1789

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." Official and current wording decided by the House and Senate

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0472_0038_ZD2.html