Updated July 20 2021
The author of the Constitutional Rights Blog does not affiliate with any other organization or people on the internet or the world for that matter. I have been saying this since I first logged on to the internet. Just because I like organizations like the ACLU; does not mean I believe in everything they believe in or stand for. Just like in our great country when we vote; we will never believe in everything the candidate we vote for; believes in or stands for. That doe not mean we are should not vote.
I make typos allot. I do not get paid to do this. I do not have a editor or anyone working for me at all. Sometimes it may take me more than one day to finish a article.
High-powered White House officials aren’t just ignoring the separation of church and state, they want to tear it down.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Read more here:
From: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/2-trump-officials-said-us-run-christian-theocracy/
I consider myself expert on the subject of separation of church and state:
Here is a example of the two of the most popular modern, political leader’s of both political parties; both agreeing on separation of church and state.
I made these two graphic’s in 2012:
The reason the pilgrims left England for America was because of religious persecution.
I also made this graphic in 2012 to crison the launch of this blog:
From: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Text of the First Amendment The First Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.
Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. […] Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?
President Ronald Reagan from the speech on Oct. 26, 1984, to the Temple Hillel leaders in Valley Stream, N.Y.
“We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”
Rabbi Friedman, Senator D’Amato, members of Temple Hillel, and to all of you, a very, very warm thank you for this wonderful greeting. It is a great honor for me to be here with you today.
I’ve covered a bit of territory since this campaign began. What’s heartened me most is the new spirit that I have found around this country, a spirit of optimism and confidence, of pride and patriotism, that has been brought forth by a great American renewal.
America’s greatest gift has always been freedom and equality of opportunity — the idea that no matter who you are, no matter where you came from, you can climb as high as your own God-given talents will take you. But a few years ago we were being told that this vision was no more, that America was in decline, and all of us had to lower our expectations.
I think you remember the disasters that defeatist spirit led to: the first back-to-back years of double-digit inflation since World War I, a 21\1/2\-percent prime interest rate, record taxation, declining growth, savings, investment, income, and confidence in our future — not to mention growing problems of crime and drugs and in education. Overseas, we had lost the respect of friends and foe alike. Our determination had grown weak, undermining commitments to even our closest friends like Israel. We talked and acted like a nation in decline, and the world believed us.
Well, in 1981 the American people set out on an entirely new course. And working together, we have cast aside the pessimism, along with high inflation, stagnation, and weakness, in a wonderful rebirth of freedom, prosperity, and hope. And today we’re seeing not humiliation and defeatism, but pride in ourselves, in our accomplishments, and in our country.
From New York Harbor to San Diego Bay, a strong economic expansion with low inflation is leading the rest of the world into recovery. America is back. America is on its feet. And America is back on the map. But we cannot and we will not rest until every American who wants a job can find a job.
A nation’s greatness is measured not just by its gross national product or military power, but by the strength of its devotion to the principles and values that bind its people and define their character. Our civil rights: on that subject, we are enforcing the law with new determination. Since we took office, the Justice Department has filed more criminal charges on civil rights violations, brought more violators to trial, and achieved more civil rights convictions than any one before us. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: As President, I will continue to enforce civil rights to the fullest extent of the law.
That’s why I have appointed to the Civil Rights Commission people like Commissioners Clarence Pendleton and Morris Abram and Staff Director Linda Chavez. They recognize that you cannot cure discrimination with more discrimination. I’m proud that they’re serving on the Commission, and I intend to keep them there. And as long as I’m President, we’ll have a Justice Department which argues for the rights of individuals to be treated as individuals, whether the case involves hiring, promotions, layoffs, or any other matter subject to the law.
And we’re also remembering the guiding light of our Judeo-Christian tradition. All of us here today are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sons and daughters of the same God. I believe we are bound by faith in our God, by our love for family and neighborhood, by our deep desire for a more peaceful world, and by our commitment to protect the freedom which is our legacy as Americans. These values have given a renewed sense of worth to our lives. They are infusing America with confidence and optimism that many thought we had lost.
You know, when you talk about human life, I think that means seeing that the immeasurable pain of the Holocaust is never dehumanized, seeing that its meaning is never lost on this generation or any future generation, and, yes, seeing that those who take our place understand: never again.
Now, perhaps that message should again be impressed on those who question why we went on a peacekeeping mission to Lebanon. Indeed, anyone who remembers the lesson of the Holocaust must understand that we have a fundamental moral obligation to assure: never again.
To help preserve that lesson for future generations, I’m satisfied that our General Services Administration has approved the use of the old Customs House by the New York City Holocaust Memorial Commission as a means of commemorating the Holocaust. And it will be a museum of the Jewish people in the Diaspora. It will serve to remind our children and our children’s children the tragic consequences of bigotry and intolerance.
We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith. And that’s why, when the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a statute — and you may not have heard about this; it was a statute protecting employees who observed the Sabbath. Well, our administration is now urging the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Connecticut Court decision. This is what I mean by freedom of religion, and that’s what we feel the Constitution intends.
And there’s something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind — none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republic[an] Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form. But in San Francisco this year, the Democratic Party couldn’t find the moral courage or leadership to pass a similar resolution. And, forgive me, but I think they owe you an explanation. [Applause]
Thank you.
What has happened to them? Why, after the issue became so prominent during the primaries, did the Democratic leadership alk away from their convention without a resolution condemning this insidious cancer? Why didn’t they turn their backs on special interests and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in support of tolerance and in unequivocal opposition to prejudice and bigotry?
We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.
And let’s not kid ourselves, the so-called anti-Zionists that we hear in the United Nations is just another mask in some quarters for vicious anti-Semitism. And that’s something the United States will not tolerate wherever it is, no matter how subtle it may be.
At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral. And government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith. And that’s why, when the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a statute — and you may not have heard about this; it was a statute protecting employees who observed the Sabbath. Well, our administration is now urging the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Connecticut Court decision. This is what I mean by freedom of religion, and that’s what we feel the Constitution intends.
And there’s something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind — none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republic[an] Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form. But in San Francisco this year, the Democratic Party couldn’t find the moral courage or leadership to pass a similar resolution. And, forgive me, but I think they owe you an explanation. [Applause]
Thank you.
What has happened to them? Why, after the issue became so prominent during the primaries, did the Democratic leadership alk away from their convention without a resolution condemning this insidious cancer? Why didn’t they turn their backs on special interests and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in support of tolerance and in unequivocal opposition to prejudice and bigotry?
We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.
And let’s not kid ourselves, the so-called anti-Zionists that we hear in the United Nations is just another mask in some quarters for vicious anti-Semitism. And that’s something the United States will not tolerate wherever it is, no matter how subtle it may be.
We have a tremendous watchdog on this, Jeane Kirkpatrick. She is one very forceful and determined woman. And she has defended Israel with persistence and courage, and America is very proud of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Contrast her performance with that sad moment on March 1st, 1980, when the American delegate to the United Nations actually voted in favor of a resolution that repeatedly condemned Israel. And why did my opponent remain silent? I ask you again, what has happened to the party of Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson?
I was once a member of that party, and for a great part of my life, myself. And I don’t believe that what we’ve seen and what I’ve been talking about is true of the millions of rank-and-file, patriotic Americans; it is only true of an element of leadership that somehow seems to have lacked the courage to stand for what is right.
I’d like to remind you of an important, indeed, a key position of the United States. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has my explicit instructions that if Israel is ever forced to walk out of the United Nations, the United States and Israel will walk out together.
I think we’ve come quite a long way together, at home and abroad. Gone are the days when we abandoned principle and common sense. Gone are the days when we meekly tolerated obvious threats to peace and security. I can tell you today from my heart, America is prepared for peace. And because we’re stronger than before, because we’ve regained our respect, and because our allies and friends know once again that we can be counted on, we’re in a position to secure a future of peace — not peace at any price, but a true, meaningful, lasting peace supported by freedom and human dignity.
Now, make no mistake, if ever we were to heed those who would cripple America’s defense-building program, we would undermine our own security and the security of our closest friends, like Israel. And as long as I’m President, that’s not going to happen. Israel and the United States are bound together by the ties of family, friendship, shared ideals, and mutual interests. We’re allies in the defense of freedom in the Middle East. And I’m proud to say, borrowing Prime Minister Peres’ words of 2 weeks ago, relations between the United States and Israel “have reached a new level of harmony and understanding.”
In partnership, Israel and the United States will continue to work toward a common vision of peace, security, and economic well-being. Our friendship is closer and stronger today, yes, than ever before. And we intend to keep it that way.
Let me leave you with one final thought. I know that many of you here today have your political roots in the Democratic Party. And I just want to say to all of you, to repeat what I said a moment ago, that I was a Democrat most of my life, and I know what it’s like when you find yourself unable to support the decisions of the leadership of that party. But to you and to the millions of rank-and-file Democrats who love America and want a better life for your children, who share our determination to build a stronger America at home and abroad, I can only say: Come walk with us down this new path of hope and opportunity, and in a bipartisan way, we will keep this nation strong and free.
The spiritual values which the Jewish community represent are now being seen by the American public on a television series, “Heritage, Civilization, And The Jews.” These are values we want and need in the Republican Party. We stand with you, working for an America that works for everyone, an America strong and successful, inspired and united for opportunity. We stand with you, committed and determined to help you protect the traditions and ethics that you hold dear. And we stand with you in your belief in the inviolability of the first amendment.
We stand with you in condemning any and all who preach or countenance bigotry, hatred, or anti-Semitism. And we stand with you in supporting the rights of Soviet Jewry and other believers. We will never be silent in the fight for human rights. We stand with you in support of our friend and democratic ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel. And together, we can build an even better future for our children and for America. And together, we will.
The other day I said something to a group of students in the White House that I will repeat to you: We are free. We are the land of the free, because we are the home of the brave.
Thank you, and God bless you all, and lechayim.
From: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy addresses the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion, Sept. 12, 1960.
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”
From: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew– or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)– instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people. But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
RELIGION OUT OF THE CLASSROOM
Students Told They Would Be Better Off ‘If They Had Jesus in Their Life’
Last week, the ACLU and the ACLU of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Smith County School System for violating the separation of church and state. According to the lawsuit, four students who are atheists have had to contend with school officials promoting Christianity through official prayers, Bible distributions, religious posters, and even a giant cross painted in one of the school’s athletic facilities. We asked our three high school clients in this case – Harleigh, Leyna, and Pyper – to tell us about their experience, their friendship, and why they decided to sue their school district. Read this blog to see what they have to say. Read more → November 18, 2019 https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/students-told-they-would-be-better-off-if-they-had-jesus-in-their-life/
I had the most awesome separation of church and state html that I worked tirelessly on, but alas I can not find it. I am sure it is some where in the tens of thousands of files I have saved over the past 15 years of bloging here. So I am just going to do some work and write it all over again. So use your little mouse and enjoy my free history lesson for you all.
I am not a atheist but,
I just can not get over the fact that people in authority of others still do not understand the importance of this Bill Of Right legacy of freedom, we all enjoy in our county. The Bill Of Rights and The Constitution and the birth of this country and the foundation of that, is why we are who we are; the greatest country in the history of the world. No religion has a right to dictate to us what prayers to say or how to live our lives. That does not mean we can not worship how we want to in America. If you live in American or especially have lived here for long enough to see the beauty of it, and still do not get it, I do not know what to tell you.
This is one thing that recently reminded me politicians and local authority’s still do not get it:
Louisiana just submitted a bill calling for public school students to recite the Lord’s Prayer alongside the Pledge of Allegiance.
NOLA Defender – Apr 8, 2013
One of the main reasons I love to support the ACLU is because of separation of church and state:
This subject I learned in all those great history classes I took as a child in Connecticut:
from good old :
“The Pilgrims’ story of seeking religious freedom has become a central theme of the history and culture of the United States.”
“This made it possible to settle at a distance that allayed concerns of social, political and religious conflicts, but still provided the military and economic benefits of relative closeness to an established colony.”
