FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: The 1st Amendment GUARANTEES the Right to Teach the Bible in Public Schools

fisher ames

If you do not know who Fisher Ames is, but you believe there is a ‘separation of Church and State’ which prohibits the teaching of the Bible in public schools, then you have fallen for a lie.  The notion that the Constitution does not allow the Bible to be taught in public schools is pure propaganda, put forth by people who actively seek to destroy this nation as it was founded.  This is a fact, not opinion, and Fisher Ames is the perfect man to attest to this truth.  In fact, there is probably no higher authority on this matter than Fisher Ames.

On the question of whether or not the Bible should be taught in public schools, Ames said:

“…we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education….We’ve become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

He also said:

“[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”

So, why does Ames’s opinion matter?  Because Fisher Ames is the man who penned the final wording of the First Amendment!

So, if anyone today presumes to claim that the man who wrote the First Amendment did not properly understand its meaning, then I assert that such a person is to be ignored on the grounds that they do not properly understand the meaning of their own words any better than they claim Ames understood his.

The fact of the matter is this:

The First Amendment was Originally Intended to Protect ALL Denominations of Christianity

If you doubt this, then read the piece.  It is filled with the founders’ words, and you will find that they were very clear and very forceful in stating what they believed.  You will also find that they disagree with what the propagandists seeking to destroy this nation as it was founded would have you believe.  In fact, not only was the First Amendment intended to protect all sects (i.e. denominations) of Christianity, the founders also asserted:

In the Founders’ Words: the Essential Role of Religion in Public and Civic Life

NOW UNDERSTAND THIS NEXT POINT CLEARLY!

The founders abhorred the very thought that this nation would fall into the hands of Atheists (i.e. any form of Secular Humanism — Communism, Progressivism, Socialism, etc).  In fact, they said that they would sooner see the nation ruled by Moslems before they saw it ruled by godless people:

AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS: Islam before Secular Humanism/Atheism!

So, when you see that Islam is now being taught in our schools, understand that the founders would have supported this!  It may be difficult for many of us who still fear the Lord to accept, but it is true: If America turns away from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and chooses to follow another god (all of which would be false gods), our founders would have allowed us to do so.  But they would also have offered us one last warning before they left us to our fate:

In the Founders’ Words: The Connection between God, Liberty and the Founding of America

In other words, liberty is found only in the teachings of the Bible.  It is not in the Qur’an, nor can it be found in any other religious teaching.  Only Jesus commanded people to offer God’s Word, but if they reject it, God’s people are not to force them to believe, but to leave them in peace:

Matthew 10:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.

Islam teaches the exact opposite: if you do not convert, Muslims are commanded to kill you.  In fact, the very ideal of letting people chose their religion is a Biblical principle.  The Whole Western world is built on Biblical principles.  The freedoms we in the West take for granted, the very freedoms with which we now seek to destroy ourselves — they are all built on Biblical principles.  We’ve just grown so self-centered and spiritually blind that we no longer see or acknowledge these truths because we can no longer see or acknowledge the Truth, period!

So, understand: we can forsake the Bible and drive it from our schools while, at the same time, allowing Islam to be pushed on our children, but the result will be conversion or death.  Islam is not compatible with the American ideal, or with our legal system.  It does not recognize the individual, nor individual rights.  Islam is slavery (the word means submission, submission to Allah –according to Muhaammad’s words).  This means, if this nation does not wake up and deal with the threat of Islam, we will all be forced to convert or die, and if you convert, you will lose everything you claim to be protecting by waging war on the Biblical principles underlying the fabric of this nation and our laws.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

 

31 responses to “FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: The 1st Amendment GUARANTEES the Right to Teach the Bible in Public Schools

  1. Joe,

    Some Biblical Truth’s on this subject.

    Matthew 18:6 – But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    Matthew 25:40 – And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

    Romans 12:19 – Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    Deuteronomy 32:35 – To me [belongeth] vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in [due] time: for the day of their calamity [is] at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

    The wrath of God towards those that deny his Truth in the Bible shall surely receive just payment for their sin that caused many to stumble.

    Their arrogance (self condemnation to Hell) will destroy them eternally.

    • chhelo,

      TRUE! But note that Scripture says exactly as I witnessed: God’s people are to allow the believer to reject Him. We are NOT to force people to believe (not that you can force someone to believe anything against their will). So, as the founders and I both believe: Scripture allows those who reject God to live in peace — until the day of judgment, anyway.

      This is also why those who reject the idea that a Just God would sentence someone to hell are wrong. God does not do it, we do — each of us, individually — by the choices we make. We either chose the Lord, or we chose judgment, and judgment without the covering of Christ’s blood is ALWAYS going to result in hell…

      • Joe,

        Correct, God does not condemn anyone. The same holds true for salvation. We can’t save any man only lead by word, thought and deed. Christ saves well man condemns himself.

  2. If you draw your interpretation of the constitution only from the founding fathers intentions, then what do you do when these founding fathers disagree (as Jefferson/Madison would frequently)?

    The language of the first amendment is clear, you will run into many issues if your basis of interpretation is from the founding fathers (lest we bring up their constitutional intentions toward the slavery issue… To ignore it for now).

    • So, according to YOU, the men who debated, wrote and ratified, then explained their intentions in doing so have no idea what they intended — but YOU do?

      See, I dismiss you, and on solid grounds.

      We have the Congressional records of the debates surrounding the 1st Amendment (as well as the whole bill of rights). We have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist paopers. We know the arguments of the times, the settled understandings and the fact that this was so by the fact that the Constitution was ratified under those understandings. The founders later affirmed all of this to be factual. So I am not speaking for them; but merely accepting what they said. Those who reject their words are little different from those who read and reject God’s Word. They think themselves above other men — even God, Himself.

  3. Ok i’ll stop you at your first paragraph. My statement is as follows

    “If you draw your interpretation of the constitution only from the founding fathers intentions, then what do you do when these founding fathers disagree (as Jefferson/Madison would frequently)?”

    I never said im speaking for their intentions, you are. You are saying their intention was for a christian religious republic, your foundation for this is on the fact that the founding fathers argued very publicly about having a christian based republic; it’s just not in the constitution.

    I’m simply saying, if your basis for interpreting the constitution is solely based on the founding father’s own intentions, then how do you justify the slavery issue, inner state commerce, the institution of a national bank? All these issues split the founding fathers down party lines, you cannot use the founding fathers as a shield for your beliefs here; at some point this logic breaks down

    • No, the logic holds — you just don’t understand what you’re saying. Essentially, you are arguing that intentions aside, when you and I disagree, it erases everything you meant to say. So, because we disagree, we can let the readers debate what we mean, vote on it, tell us their understanding of what they decvided and then I can come along, point to our disagreement and tell EVERYONE they are wrong — you do not know what you meant and I alone get to decree what was actually intended because of what I want. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

      I, on the other hand, understand the PRINCIPLE in question — the IDEAL for which our founders were shooting. This is what they debated, and where they disagreed — for the most part — it was over HOW to achieve their goals, not the goals, themselves.

      So, slavery: an error in applying the principles and ideals the founders espoused, and addressed by the 3/5th Clause. When properly understood, the 3/5th Clause guaranteed slavery would be addressed again in the future — and, in all likelihood, ended. The 3/5th Clause guaranteed it would end, or the slave States would — eventually — be dominated by the non-slave States due to representation.

      Jefferson v Madison: again, they differed on the HOW, not the goal. So your objection here is also moot.

      As for the claim that the founders intended a Christian people ruling themselves according to Christian teachings — another moot point. Read the links I have provided. They are filled with the founders saying we either do so, or we lose our liberty to pagans and atheists. As it turns out, history is proving them 100% CORRECT!

      As to why you do not find Christianity in the Constitution: it is because you do not know or understand the Bible. If you did, you would find it is ORGANIC to the Constitution. It would be like someone two hundred years from now claiming we did not expect computers to be used in our daily lives because we did not explicitly say so in our legal documents. That would be just as absurd. Computers are organic to our daily lives, so they are assumed — just as Christianity was assumed by our founders.

      So the only attempted logic breaking down here is the twisted reasoning you are trying to use to deny objective reality. it is why I dismiss you. Objective reality simply is not on your side. Furthermore, if we are to reject the founders words as to the meaning of their intentions, then we must also reject your words as you can no more know what you mean than you claim they did…

  4. “you do not know what you meant and I alone get to decree what was actually intended because of what I want. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!”
    lol.

    “So, slavery: an error in applying the principles and ideals the founders espoused, and addressed by the 3/5th Clause.”

    So the founding fathers didn’t disagree on the slavery issue? This is very untrue. The popular founding fathers were indeed against it, this is true; but delegates from the Carolina and Georgia both supported the institution of slavery. They just don’t get many mentions in the history books.

    “Jefferson v Madison: again, they differed on the HOW, not the goal. So your objection here is also moot.”

    Very untrue.

    http://classroom.synonym.com/differences-between-hamilton-jeffersons-views-political-party-beliefs-6178.html
    There are plenty of constitutional differences between these two men.

    And between the founding fathers in general.
    http://www.diffen.com/difference/Anti-Federalist_vs_Federalist

    “As to why you do not find Christianity in the Constitution: it is because you do not know or understand the Bible. If you did, you would find it is ORGANIC to the Constitution.”

    So if I were a christian then I would understand that the constitution is a christian document. if i am not a christian than i would not understand this relationship. Smells like a tautology.

    • No, the differences were not in ideal. They were in application. But the issue is — again — moot. They debated, voted and then affirmed the understanding they ratified. We are bound by that UNLESS AND UNTIL WE AMEND IT! YOU — and those like you — seek to nullify by confusing the issue with false assertions. Slavery is but one of them.

      In the end, the crux of our discussion is that you refuse to let people speak for themselves. You would rather decide what others mean for them, and then declare from on high that you cannot be challenged because two people disagree. And you pretend to speak to me of logic? You have no understanding of the concept. How can you lecture someone about that which you don’t even understand?

      Case in point: your objection to Christianity being organic tot he COnstitution. You can skoff all you want, but the U.S. COngress made this conclusion, and they entered it into the Congressional records. So you are telling me I am wrong when the U.S. Congress has already said YOU are the one who has not the slightest idea what the hell they are saying.

      You really should read my supporting links before you demonstrate you are grinding an axe of agenda rather than seeking the truth…

    • The Bill of Rights was added to help solve the rift between the Founders that you mention. Even then it was not a unanimous ratification.

      The whole “interpretation” issue is itself another issue. Not a particularly valid one especially apres the ratification. ( again, a whole Topic in and of itself) . But to invoke this political tool in regards the Founders is specious.

      They knew what their “intentions” where. And though some differed in those intentions they didn’t about the basic goals of the NaturaL Rights they were trying to create a government to protect.

      The 1st Amendment had the goal of Clearly stating there is no authority within the government to establish a State Religion and that each individual is free to exercise their religion….worship as they please if you will. As long as that worship doesn’t conflict with our Natural Rights.

      • True, but furthermore, they expressly understood and asserted that these rights extended to the public square. In fact, they expected a person to live according to their faith in public as well as private life. NOTHING they said can be construed to assert the founders expected a man to lay his faith aside simply because they assumed public office. Quite the opposite: they said no man without faith should ever be allowed to hold such a position (mainly because you cannot trust someone who does not have fear of the Lord).

        • Yes that’s right. Freely exercising one’s religion didn’t mean to them only behind closed doors in one’s home.

          A problem arises wherein muslims can claim the same and thus we have them taking the Oath of public office swearing in on the koran.

          • That is on us. Contrary to what collectivist would have people believe, I do NOT put words in the founders’ mouths. That is why, though I dislike it, I accurately and honestly report that the founders said this could happen. But they also said it would only happen if the American people renounced their Christian heritage and, if they did so, they would lose their liberties. So, as we elect Muslims to office, we WILL lose our liberties — even the freedom to worship or not worship as we please. I just hope collectivist understands he/she will soon have to convert to Islam (and practice it) or die.

  5. Couple last comments

    “You would rather decide what others mean for them, and then declare from on high that you cannot be challenged because two people disagree. ”

    Please find anywhere in my posts where i claim this last sentence.

    “Case in point: your objection to Christianity being organic tot he COnstitution. You can skoff all you want, but the U.S. COngress made this conclusion, and they entered it into the Congressional records. So you are telling me I am wrong when the U.S. Congress has already said YOU are the one who has not the slightest idea what the hell they are saying.”

    I’m really glad that you are invoking this nations institutional forms of political power as legitimacy for your argument. Because now I can give you this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

    In case you were wondering, this is the US government’s stance on prayer in public schools. It seems that the supreme court, and institution created by the founding fathers to interpret the constitution (note, it wasn’t an institution intended to be staffed by experts who study the founding father’s intention of the constitution), completely disagrees with you. So by your reasoning, you should openly admit to being wrong here.

    • “Please find anywhere in my posts where i claim this last sentence.”

      It has been the crux of your entire chain of argument.

      As for the later assertions of a ROGUE court/government — I give you…YOU! See, they do NOT mean what they say in your link. Why? Because they disagree with the founders and, according to you, that means they cannot mean what they say they mean (this is so fun).

      Collectivist (that says sooo much), the problem you have is that you are appealing to the government AFTER the government had been perverted. Prior to this, back when the people still adhered to reason and the rule of law, it was understood that the 1st Amendment protected the right to practice individual faith — even in public office. This changed with the rise of the Progressive movement, which identified the need to sever the Declaration from the Constitution, then insert the ‘living document’ doctrine. the whole purpose was to undermine the religious foundations upon which the government was built so that they could then infiltrate and pervert it to what it has become. History records that this is exactly what has happened, and since you are holding tot he Progressive line, we can assume you have either drank the Kool Aid, or you are serving it. All that remains i to determine which it is…

      • And the SCOTUS was never meant to Legislate from the Bench. So its original intent and function has been de-legitimized.

        • True, but our collectivist friend here does not recognize that as fact. 😉

          • Collectivist.

            This is the center of the problem. And their “tools of the trade”. Not the least of which is this whole concept of “interpretation”. By not addressing and attacking it we have over time given it legitimacy and a life of its own.

            By analogy with Cultural Marxism we need to be dismantling the pillars upon which the Progressive-Collectivism stands undermining its own rhetorical institutions if you will.

            This has started with the push-back against Political Correctness and as you and others have done by showing how the Ownership of the language by the Communists has been weaponized ! This “interpretation” weapon now needs similar attention, as does the MLK myth and some other ingrained assumptions that pervade the thinking of the General Public but which are Collectivist constructs.

            The Fight goes on….. :- )).

          • thanks for the reply, I agree with fighting against political correctness., as it’s something I’ve posted about from time to time. I also rally against “interpretation” arguments, I want people who seem to know how to save humanity to speak up and convince me!

          • It starts by adhering to Natural Law. Among the Natural Laws are those governing language. One cannot dismiss the plain meaning of words (as understood in the context of their time) and claim to adhere tot he law. If you do so, you are demonstrating you are lawless.

            So, when the founders speak, we are bound to accept them at their word. They do not need to speak with a unanimous voice. In fact, I am glad they did not. But the voice that expresses the understanding of the majority rules! In this case, that was the Federalists (and time has shown they were wrong and the Anti-Federalists were correct). But you object to this because you do not want to accept that the majority voice connected this country, its laws and its system of government with the GENERAL principles of Christianity — the very same principles, by the way, which you now claim in order to exercise your objection to objective reality.

            So I ask you: how can anyone “convince” you when you have already demonstrated that your mind is made up and you will not listen to sound reason?

          • Joe,

            My comment which started.. ” Collectivist.” was meant as a reply to your above comment…. ;- )). Hence no comma.

          • No worries. I recognize the tune in Duck’s little dance. We’re heard it before — many times 😉

          • Yes Duck,
            We agree on PC. My Comment was directed at Black but I appreciate your reply.

  6. “It has been the crux of your entire chain of argument.”
    Please find this for me then. Support this claim.

    “As for the later assertions of a ROGUE court/government — I give you…YOU! See, they do NOT mean what they say in your link. Why? Because they disagree with the founders”

    The rest of your response ties into the same reasoning. This will probably be the last time I re-iterate myself. My argument has been the same throughout, and it’s very simple; you just refuse to address it.

    1. You are basing your entire argument on what the founders intended for the constitution and the future of America
    2. You have not identified who these founders were, specifically. Give us names, because there are MANY founding fathers. In reality the founders were split on many issues, each had different intentions and different visions for the future of America.
    3. You respond to #2 by saying, yes they were split but they ratified their differences and ‘agreed’ upon a document. But these documents, the bill of rights, the constitution, are not universally agreed upon by the founders.
    4. The only way you can deal with #3 in your argument here is to say we need to take the existing interpretation of the future of america to be generated by the institutions prior to their supposed corruption but once again you don’t tell us when this actually is. So i’ll guess, lets jump into a time machine and witness the early 1800s america we all know and love.

    1800s America is rife with the slavery issue that you seem really keen on side stepping. It is also the time where the national bank of the US was formed via these supposedly pure institutions who were based entirely on the intentions of these anonymous founding fathers (despite the vitriolic ejections from many founding fathers, namely Jefferson). Two supreme court cases outline serious divisions between the founding fathers, which get settled by the constitutional courts (prior to their supposed corruption).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

    So here we are, assume that this court is pure and just, and the marbury case was the true intention of the founders. This means we now need to start questioning Jefferson’s role as one of these anonymous founding fathers. He says after the result,

    “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    So apparently the supreme court was behaving contrary to the founding father’s intentions as early as 1803!

    So let’s hear it, who exactly are the founding fathers, and when are the institutions they generated to be trusted and when are they to be considered corrupt? Give me dates.

    • READ THE LINKS YOU MORON! Everything you claim I do not provide is there. As with everything else, people like you simply refuse to accept objective reality. You insist on trying to force the world to bow to YOUR desire of how things should be. Well, I have news for you, reality still exists — whether you like it or not. And it testifies against you!

      To others read these comments: Collectivist is a Propagandist and enemy of America and liberty. BEWARE PEOPLE LIKE THIS! They are children of deception!

      • You know that Jefferson is listed in your own links… Right?

        • “The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.”

          Same man who established regular CHRISTIAN Church services in the Capital building, and who never missed service — even when he had to ride two hours through a snow storm to attend…

          THOMAS JEFFERSON!

  7. Please respond to my earlier comment about the difference between Jeffersons intentions and the actions of early 1800s political institutions that he helped invent.

  8. You can teach the “bible” in public school, right along side the “talmud”, or the “quran” feel free….as long as it’s an elective and you keep your fantasies away from my children.

    • Funny thing about people who call the Bible a ‘fantasy.’ It is the single most affirmed book of antiquity: always being proven correct, never having been shown wrong. So, if it is a ‘fantasy,’ then EVERYTHING we know of antiquity must also be ‘fantasy.’ That, or you must renounce reason 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *