Source: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0183_Separation_of_Church.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:00:21+00:00

Document:
Separation of Church and State: Has it gone too far?
These are only a few of the instances in which the modern Court has forcibly separated church and state. Almost all instances occur in the realm of public education. According to a poll published in Time magazine (Dec. 9, 1991, pg. 64) most of these separations are largely contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the American people.
The Courts started this decidedly un-American and subversive behavior with the Everson decision in 1947. The actions that the Court took at that time began to reverse the long standing opinions of the Court for the 150 years preceding 1947, and these recent decisions were without legal precedent, a definite taboo in the legal profession at that time.
“Why did the Court not include a precedent? The answer is simple: there were no previous cases to support its decision in this case! The Court had refused to acknowledge the existence of opinions by the Founders, Congress, previous Courts, and others, because those opinions conflicted with the position the Court now assumed. This ruling was simply a declaration of the Court’s new policy, revealing the way it would now interpret the First Amendment.
“The Court employed an effective strategy to help create acceptance of the new policy: the appearance of its widespread public support … Without legal precedents to aid them, the Court relied on purveying an image of universal acceptance and support of its new policy. This was a patient misrepresentation … The Court had employed an effective marketing strategy, but not an honest one!
The terminology that the Court used, that of a “wall of separation” between church and state was not even taken from what the Founding Fathers believed, but rather, was taken from an obscure speech given by Thomas Jefferson and was then twisted out of context.
Jefferson gave a speech to a Baptist association during his Presidency. Because he wanted to establish common ground with them in his speech, he borrowed a phrase from one of their theologians to use in his speech. The context in which he used the phrase: “wall of separation” was to reassure them that the national government would not establish a national government supported church (denomination) to be superior to all other denominations. The “wall of separation” phrase was meant as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering (see Barton, pp. 41-42 and Eidsmoe, p. 243).
Don’t be misled. Look at American history for yourself, instead of just taking someone else’s word for it. The people teaching you this stuff don’t want you to go to the sources of American history, the original documents, they only want you too read what has been said about it recently. So be radical, read the Constitution for yourself, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, and all of the other documents important in American history. When we quit reading these things for ourselves, we become no better than cows to be herded around, led by the nose, and then indiscriminately slaughtered.
1 Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 18 (1947).
2 Engel v. Vitale; 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
3. Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
4 Massachusetts Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden; 267 N.E. 2d 226, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849 (1971).
5 Reed v. van Hoven, 237 F. Supp. 48 (1965).
6 Stein v. Oshinsky; 348 F. 2d 299, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 957 (1965).
7 Collins v. Chandler Unified School District; 644 F. 2d 759, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863 (1981).
8 State Board of Education v. Board of Netcong; 270 A. 2d 412, 57 N.J. 172, 108 N.J. Super 564, 262 A. 2d 21 (1970).
9 Stone v. Graham; 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
10 Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District; 483 F. Supp. 272 (1980).
11 Lanner v. Wimmer; 622 F. 2d 1349 (1981).
12 John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Baker Book House, Michigan, 1987) p.406.
14 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder Press, Aledo, Texas, 1989) pp.147,148.
17. Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., Brentwood TN., 1987) p.196.
18 Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 (FACE, San Francisco, CA. 1967) p.10.
20 LaHaye, p.194, 196; Eidsmoe. pp. 272-273. Quoted from The Works of John Adams.
21 Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, Philadelphia, 1986) p.21.
22 Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 143 U.S. 469 (1892).
23 People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 546 (1811).
24 Verna M. Hall and Rosalie J. Slater, The Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America (Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, 1983) p.38.
26 Steve C. Dawson, God’s Providence in America’s History (Steve C. Dawson, Rancho Cordova, CA) p.12:3.
27 Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (FACE) p.247.
28 Vidal v. Girard’s Executors; 43 U.S. 153 (1844).
29 City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin; 2 Strob. 520 (1846).
30 People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 546 (1811).
31 B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (George W. Childs, Philadelphia, 1864) p.318-329.
33 Clarence E. MacCartney, Lincoln and the Bible (Abington-Cokesbury Press, New York, 1949) p.35.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.