Separation Of Christianity And State
by Ken Ham on May 3, 2010; last featured November 6, 2014

Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” However, fewer realize the phrase is not in the Constitution.

When we understand and embrace God’s Word, we will know the difference between the truth and the lies, and we won’t be deceived.

Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and the teaching of creation in science classes.

Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.

I will highlight key words of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .
TODAY, SECULAR SCHOLARS HAVE TURNED THE SO-CALLED “WALL” METAPHOR COMPLETELY ON ITS HEAD.

You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution). The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.¹

Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ENTIRELY FOREIGN AND UNINTENDED CONCEPT TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
“Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.

Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!

The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):

Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.²

In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!

Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.

LordReed:


Then get ready to loose your tax exemptions.

OLAADEGBU:


President Trump has dashed the hopes of you witches and atheists by removing the Johnson Amendment.

LordReed:


In your dreams. Fake news carrier.

OLAADEGBU:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi3Blv-VF4M

What then happened to the executive order he signed?

LordReed:


On May 4, 2017, Trump signed the "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."[18] The executive order does not (nor can it[19]) repeal the Johnson Amendment, nor does it allow ministers to endorse from the pulpit, but it does direct the Department of Treasury that "churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be." Douglas Laycock, speaking to The Washington Post, indicated that he was not aware of any cases where such implied endorsements have caused problems in the past.[20] Walter B. Jones Jr. had been the principal congressional advocate for repealing the speech restriction altogether and had support from the Family Research Council in modifying religious speech language in the Kevin Brady sponsored tax re-write legislation styled, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[21]

The final version of the major tax rewrite legislation passed in December 2017 does not include the House repeal of the Johnson Amendment because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the Byrd Rule for reconciliation legislation.[22][23][24]

OLAADEGBU:


Read the underlined for understanding of the executive order.

LordReed:


It doesn't repeal the Johnson Amendment period. Fake news carrier.

OLAADEGBU:


Ministers of the gospel will not be found guilty if they endorse politicians. Checkmate.

LordReed:


In similar situations as secular organisations ergo you cannot endorse from the pulpit. Read and understand.

OLAADEGBU:


There is nothing like separation between Church and State.

LordReed:


Pivot as usual. Meanwhile read the 1st amendment properly. Analogy: There is nothing like trinity in the bible so where did you get it from?

OLAADEGBU:


There is nothing like the word 'grandfather' in the KJV of the Bible where did you get grandfather from?

LordReed:


That's the question for you to answer.

OLAADEGBU:


Going by your crooked atheistic thinking there should be nothing like grandfather in the Bible because we cannot find the word there.

LordReed:


In similar situations as secular organisations ergo you cannot endorse from the pulpit. Read and understand.

OLAADEGBU:


Educate yourself with facts.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/may/were-giving-churches-their-voices-back-trump-signs-exec-order-protecting-religious-freedom

OLAADEGBU:
There is nothing like separation between Church and State.

MrPresident1:
Taxing church or other religious gatherings who derive all their income from members is double taxation. Members are already taxed, why tax the church gathering or religious gathering again?

The exception is if they engage in profit making activities. If you make profit, you pay tax, right?

LordReed:


Why tax goods and services since the people paying for them are already taxed?

MrPresident1:


Your logic is not good.

Most basic and essential goods or services are exempted from taxes

Besides, do religious organisations provide goods or services?

LordReed:


Like which goods and services are not taxed?

Do religious organisations get taxed?

MrPresident1:


Basic food items like bread garrison and medicines are exempted from tax.

I was providing a grounds for the exemption of religious gatherings from tax as all their revenue comes from already taxed members. As long as this revenue is used for charity purposes, they cannot in all honesty be taxed.

However, if they engage in any profit making venture, then that venture must pay taxes.

LordReed:

Why tax goods and services since the people paying for them are already taxed?

LordReed:

You must live on another planet. Those things are taxed, check the tax regimen. To clarify, the organisations that produce or sell them pay taxes.

Religious organisations are not taxed so I don't know what you are talking about. Besides they don't declare what they use the money for so even if they are not using the money for charity nobody knows.

MrPresident1:


This is your first question, and it was about consumers. In relation with consumers, basic and essential foods and medicines including services are exempted from taxes. No one charges you VAT for buying bread or yam or garri or paracetamol. This is at the consumer end.



In relation to production, which is the context you have now introduced, the production of garri, paracetamol, bread etc as a business for profit will be taxed.
Religious gatherings who engage in profit making venture are liable to have such accounts taxed. The exemption applies when adequate proof is provided that all ventures are not for profit, and dedicated to charity.

Otherwise, taxing religious gatherings, just for the sake of it, would amount to double taxation

LordReed:


And your logic is religious institutions which aren't being taxed anyway should be exempt from tax because the people who "donate" to them are already taxed. I am asking you how it becomes double taxation if a tax payer paying for goods and services that already get taxed is not double taxation. Unless you say it is then your point is moot.

Besides religious organisations do not get audited to know whether or not their money is being spent on charity. So if they are spending it buying jets and houses no one knows and can do all of that activity tax free. Is that ok to you?

MrPresident1:


I already made a dichotomy of taxes made from profit making ventures, and taxes from consumption. A producer who produces for profit, and makes profit should be taxed. A consumer of essential basic items cannot be VATTED. The categories of taxes are different.

Actually, you need to speak to what you know, I know churches who provided well audited accounts to members.

Charity cannot be taxed, it runs against common sense.