Is it time to end the wall war in the USA courts ” prohibiting the free exercise therof: of religion?
Ever since the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment to fit in a box statement of Thomas Jefferson, “separation of church and state,” there has been a wall war going on in the USA.
The wall war has and is being waged over time, and won in small bits and pieces, by a very small group of atheists over time.
In my opinion, it is time for Religion to counterattack what I believe has been a misinterpretation by the highest court in the USA.
In other words, “Mr. Gorbachev (USA Supreme Court) , open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” (Misinterpretation of First Amendment)
Why a Misinterpretation?
Frankly, because the Supreme Court is made up of imperfect human beings that have made proven mistakes in the past. The first amendment states this verse relating to Religion.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Consider if building a wall to separate state from religion is protecting or preserving, or restricting in effect, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Or is the misinterpretation fair and equitable, the two core words to define justice?
Is secularism or atheism, the antithesis of religion, being favored over religion by taxing people so high to support government run schools that the average household cannot afford to send their children to a private religious school?
To begin with, Thomas Jefferson wrote another box phrase, “all men are created equal” when he penned the Declaration of Independence. Yet slavery continued for over 200 years. The Supreme Court was challenged and interpreted the Dred Scot decision, and was later overturned, which is an example of the possibility of human error, or misinterpretation error, of the Supreme Court.
Why Wage War Now?
After reading Chicago Tribune article titled, Chicago Area-Clergy defend housing allowance as it faces legal challenge. In other words, atheists won a ruling to challenge the IRS to eliminate clergy could deduct living expense. As if the atheists have a new strategy to crush teaching religion, which is now too costly for most average families.
If atheists can challenge and win over a prior decision upheld by the Supreme Court 60 years ago, religious believers can do the same to overturn the misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
Also, the Supreme Court now may be waking up about their prior wall built box phrase when they refused to hear and rule on a Mississippi appeal. If you consider a previous Supreme Court ruling where the Court ruled it was legal to accommodate religion, yes the time is right for the Supreme Court to “tear down the wall.”.
In My Opinion
Subversive high taxes to support government run secular teachings is a form ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Just look at all the various Federal, State, and Local taxes an average family is now being taxed to support government run schools.
In a previous post, I suggested school vouchers and allowing religion be taught in public schools if a parent wants their child to attend.
However, before the Supreme Court can rule, I strongly suggest they produce a legal definition of what a religion can be defined. In another previous post, I explained that without a definition, the IRS and we taxpayers are allowing political entities instead of religious entities tax deductions. For example, certain religious sects state their laws, instead of USA laws, must be adhered to, even if it means they kill other human beings not adhering to their beliefs.t
I have selected a number of links in the Source below. I began with a listing of all previous Supreme Court rulings made in the past on religion. Some I believe are Subversive to good order as explained in the following excerpt.
Note, if anyone believes the Supreme Court has never breached the wall in the past, it is not true. They outlawed polygamy for reasons of good order even though it was a religious belief.
The question to consider is, does religion contribute to good order. If it does why has the Supreme Court built a wall to prohibit and subvert good order in the USA?
Subversive to Good Order?
Jefferson’s opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was “fully compatible with Jefferson’s views on the separation of church and state;” however, others point to Jefferson’s support for a scheme in which students at the university would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history
Jefferson’s letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
What to Do if You Agree
Begin by doing and following this saying of what the secular and atheist do in Washington. The method has been used since ancient times to move stones to build pyramids, and in modern machinery to move mountains and tear down barriers to build new roads and canals.
“Squeeky wheels get the most grease.”
Regards and goodwill blogging.