By Deanna Spingola
18 November 2006
Follow me on Twitter
According to the globalists, the Constitution must be crushed in order to establish global governance. Every freedom must be revoked; the Bill of Rights must be misrepresented with persuasive propaganda from the most trusted sources. The entire deceptive operation must appear to benefit the masses. It must be shrewdly executed with focused determination or the populace may awaken and revolt.
The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. 
Religious intolerance and persecution is rampant in many countries. Because of the religious intolerance directed at my own ancestors I am adamant about separation of church and state. Religious reformer John Rogers, a distant but direct ancestor (11th great grandfather), was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield, near Warwick, Nottinghamshire, England during the reign of Mary Tudor. He was a close associate of William Tyndale and an editor of the “Matthew Bible.” Rogers was the first British Protestant martyr under Queen Mary. “On the Monday morning of his death, the Sheriff had shown Rogers a document promising pardon if he would recant. ‘That which I have preached with my lips will I seal with my blood,’ was the answer.” 
The Constitution established our federal government. That document is a two way agreement; it is every citizen’s social contract with their government. Accordingly, all of our rights are protected – except the ones we willingly give up. Driven by government-provoked fear, we frequently give up sovereignty for alleged security. We are relinquishing, little by little, our God-given freedoms and will eventually wake up enslaved in a tyrannical, controlling state.
Mass persuasion by public officials, news commentators, teachers and some church leaders falsely claim that we live in a democracy rather than a republic. Some of those same individuals claim that “separation of church and state” is not a constitutional concept. Individual rights were completely absent from the first draft of the Constitution. “Unless assured that a bill of rights would be passed, many states threatened to withhold ratification of the Constitution. Consequently, in 1789, the First Congress of the United States adopted the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Ratification of these amendments by the required number of states occurred in 1791.” 
First Amendment: “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.”
Madison’s first draft of the First Amendment read: “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 pretence, infringed.”  It is highly significant that religion, of all the liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights, is the very first freedom mentioned. The First Amendment, possibly the most important in the Bill of Rights, enumerates five freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Those God-given freedoms facilitate individual participation in the process of self-government.
The Bill of Rights pertains to and was designed to protect the individual rights of each and every person. The specific tenets of the Bill of Rights were not rights granted to the government, an artificial body created by the citizens. The right of “free exercise” pertains to individuals, not to government. Therefore, a government entity or any person representing that entity cannot claim or seize “free exercise.” The “free exercise” of an individual’s religion, not the government’s religion, is constitutional. Consequently, a government employee may not constitutionally direct any type of religious observance while functioning in that government-sponsored occupation.
The Religious Right and their minions endorse their versions of school prayer. My children attended school to study math, grammar, penmanship, history, biology, science, and to enhance their already developed reading skills. I did not send them to school to learn to pray. We pray regularly in our home and at church. Citizens should not be obligated to pay taxes for students to learn how to pray. Given America’s diversity, what kind of a prayer would it be: Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Methodist, Mormon? Which students are going to feel discomfort or suffer mild to aggressive persecution for not being the “right” religion? Will the students who belong to the “right” religion feel compelled to openly pray for the “sinful” student – to save his or her soul from hell? Governments should not sponsor any activity that contributes or provokes persecution or aggression towards others based on religion or ethnicity.
“The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.” 
Thomas Jefferson stated: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”
Despite the intentionally secular foundation of the constitution, there have been and will continue to be controversial court cases, many perpetuated by stables of high-priced attorneys retained by different factions of the Religious Right to publicize the questionable premise that America’s Christians are consistently persecuted. The actual objective of such lawsuits is to outrage the voters who will then demand specific religious freedoms even if it means incremental loss of religious freedoms or discrimination for others. The very people who should make every effort to protect religious freedom are, in fact, jeopardizing it.
In colonial times, many European monarchs referred to their nations as Christian countries. However, sinners and hypocrites comprised the bulk of their local populace. Nations, like people, are defined by their national character and moral fortitude. To the colonial, Roger Williams, residency in a particular place did not equate to Christianity.  Likewise, given our duplicitous propensity for class discrimination, abortion, offensive war, the economic destabilization of other countries and deathly sanctions, referring to America as a Christian nation casts super serious doubt upon our interpretation of a Christian.
Many, particularly in the Religious Right, claim that the United States was established as a Christian nation rather than a free nation. They perpetuate this erroneous theory in order to attract other morally upright people who might naïvely embrace the Religious Right’s spurious agenda. However, to appeal to others, they downplay the word “Christian” and include others they may have previously attempted to discredit as non Christian. “By referring more ecumenically to the United States as a religious nation, they invite other religious traditions to join a family-values crusade launched originally by a particular form of Christian faith.” … “A shift in rhetorical strategy to widen political appeal does not affect the substantive issues at stake.” 
Every decent person is for “family values” but not through government enforcement. People who endorse separation of church and state do not hate religion! Justifiable objections arise when some “Christian leaders” demand that their particular version of religion be incorporated into the nation’s laws.
In every age, religious advocates have attempted to influence others through government enforcement. Individuals seeking political office frequently use religion to draw support from the religious community. Campaign customs have significantly changed in the last four to five decades. Candidates discuss ideology instead of specific political issues that detrimentally affect every single citizen. View one of John F. Kennedy’s campaign speeches and then evaluate contemporary candidate rhetoric – it is a night and day difference.
The founding fathers had respect for religion and it is because of that respect that they resisted some of the religious leaders of the day and refrained from merging the operations of government with religion. To serve Dominionist goals, it is relatively easy to harvest ambiguous quotes from the founders that appear to endorse the merging of church and state. There are sufficient public examples that history revisionists use to “prove” that religion and politics are compatible.
The phrase “In God we trust” is on our money as a result of the pressure and ranting of Horace Bushnell, a Connecticut preacher, who said that the Civil War was “divine retribution” for America’s acceptance of “speculative and infidel” ideas that government was not ordained by God. It is a blasphemous insult to put God’s very name on worthless paper printed by the international bankers who hijacked our economy and are currently draining America’s resources. The majority of people may actually trust money and the power it gives more than they trust God. In today’s corrupt climate, anyone can literally “buy anything in the world for money” and it is outrageous to attach God’s name to filthy lucre, made filthier by the mass destruction that it causes in the hands of those who seek total control.
“Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” –Mark 13:17 and Luke 20:25
Blaming Lincoln’s war of northern aggression on infidels is akin to some current religious leaders who claim that 9/11 is the result of our country’s homosexual tolerance. Falwell remarked: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”  How discomforting that some religious leaders, who have similar, though secret lifestyles, reject individuals and dispel them from their midst rather than inviting everyone into their realm in order to love and teach them. Isn’t it time that we separate church and hate. What happened to true worship – emulation?
Perhaps Falwell’s apology was insincere considering that he continues to define others in negative terms such as being anti-Christ. This “Christian” preacher’s unabashed comments are regularly heard in the “conservative,” administration-friendly media.  This is so radically different from his methodology before he combined his abilities with those who spearheaded the most current assault on the religious clauses within the First Amendment.
The suddenly star-struck Falwell was a typical preacher who understood the gospel process up until his merger with the ultra conservative New Right. Falwell said the following during the civil rights movement of the 1960s: “We have a message of redeeming grace through a crucified and risen Lord. Nowhere are we told to reform the externals. We are not told to wage a war against bootleggers, liquor stores, gamblers, murderers, prostitutes, racketeers, prejudiced persons or institutions, or any other existing evil as such. The gospel does not clean up the outside but rather regenerates the inside.” 
Changing society begins with changing oneself. Religious practitioners need to address the individuals in their congregations – that is their job. The churches must get back to doing what they are supposed to do – not lobby government officials to instill additional mountains of repressive, bigoted regulations designed to disenfranchise certain groups and strip others of their individual freedoms. That is hardly moral or just. Morality, especially from an apparently immoral human entity like the government, cannot come from the top down. It will deliver quite the opposite.
Many prefer fast food religion rather than repentance and “feasting upon the word of God.” Repentance changes hearts which then results in better behavior including a desire to bury the weapons of war, support peace and view one’s alleged enemies in a completely different light. Good behavior as a result of government enforcement, a function that many want the government to assume, does not impact the heart and soul.
Personally, I would not entrust a government that kills the citizens of weaker countries with the task of saving my soul. Nor would I trust the very vocal religious practitioners who support such senseless slaughter. It appears that many individuals, including religious leaders, have created the “Uncle Sam” golden calf. Rather than self-reliance, a by-product of accepting responsibility and repenting for one’s own behavior, many rely upon “Uncle Sam” to solve every dilemma or enforce better behavior. It is all a diabolical deception to strip us all of our free agency and the very ideals and principles we cherish.
 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
 Engel vs. Vitale, US Supreme Court, Decided June 25, 1962, Hugo Lafayette Black, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
 The Godless Constitution, the Case Against Religious Correctness by Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore, p. 51
 Ibid, p. 13
 Jerry Falwell, as quoted in Jerome L. Himmelstein, To the Right, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990, p. 118 as quoted in Blinded by Might, Can the religious Right Save America? By Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, p. 85
© Deanna Spingola 2006 - All rights reserved
Deanna Spingola's articles
are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the
person or organization must not
charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and
full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.