CHURCH AND STATE The school all recited in unison ". . .that one Nation, indivisible, under God, shall not perish from this Earth." "Now, let's give thanks to the Father for all the blessings we have received in the pursuit of our studies. Mr. Jones, will you lead us in the prayer?" Mr. Jack Jones, the minister of our local Methodist Church gives a short but inspiring prayer. The entire class of students respond with a sincere 'Amen'. They hold the opening ceremony each day in the audi- torium. Following the prayer, the entire school sings a song from the hymnal. They are accompanied by the church organist. No student has ever complained that they didn't enjoy these morning sessions. Students are excused and go to their respective classrooms. The school, sponsored by our church, gains its support from members of the church who have children attending the school. Parents became disenchanted with our public school system. They finally agreed they should have input in determining the teaching of their children. In the lower grade public schools, rowdiness had become an accepted fact of school life. The teachers had simply lost control over the students. It had become obvious that teaching was to accommodate slower students. Other students with more and faster learning abilities were held back. They were becoming bored and restive. In junior and senior high schools, the same problems existed and drug use is becoming evident. Physical violence is becoming an everyday occurrence. These problems were all on the minds of parents when they decided to form a school under the sponsorship of the church. Throughout the history of this country, churches were in the forefront of educa- tion. Some of the oldest colleges in the east were started in the same manner. In his study and interpretation of the history of education in the United States, Elwood P. Cubberly (1868- 1941) demonstrated that in the United States the school arose everywhere as a child of the church. James F. Messenger (b. 1872), in his study of the history of education, points out at time of the framing of the Constitution of the United States, in 1787, education was regarded as a matter of church control. (Encyclopedia Americana) Back to our school. Several parents had been teachers in the past and they were hired for the new school. The man hired as principal also coordinated the lesson plans for all the classes. The student body had grown to 45 in the past year alone. Scholastically, our students scored appreciably higher than students of the same grades in public schools of our city. The students were proud of their achievements. The teachers were proud of their students as were the parents.  Our school was gaining a reputation for good, solid educa- tion. No frills, no pampering, no nonsense. That our students scored much higher than students in the public system obviously upset local and state education authorities. Efforts were started to close the school. First attack was on the teachers . . . they were not state accredited. The school answered that this was a private school and of no concern to educational authorities. Nevertheless, it was apparent these people had become concerned. Our students were learning to become God-fearing, questioning and upright citizens. They were not robots as were being churned out in the state run system. State authorities were not so easily dissuaded and filed suit in a local court to have the school closed. Our minister and principal ignored the court order and the school continued. For a short while, anyway. The local sheriff came by the church and school with an order for the school to close down. However, the minister had received a call from friends and the doors are locked barring their entry. Finally, in a show of police power, they forced their way into the buildings. They actually arrested the minister and principal for contempt of court. What was that? They forced their way into the church and school to arrest the minister and the principal? Is this still America? Just where do these knotheads find the authority to pull such a stunt? Separation of church and state, is their argument. Where do they find such a statement? They insist our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Religion belongs to the church and education is a state function. Cow paddies! Our Constitution says NO such thing. These are words of demented idiots. These people are parroting words which were taken completely out of their context. This statement is attributed to Thomas Jefferson and used by bleeding hearts out of it's intent and meaning for many years. Let's take a look at what our Constitution has to say about church and state. The First Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights. This specifically prohibits the government from interfering in special areas such as religion, press, free speech, etc. The introductory statement or preamble to the Bill of Rights makes the intent crystal clear . . . "THE Convention of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent mis- construction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public  confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:" (Also from Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union) Not any question about the intent of the First Congress when it submitted the first twelve amendments to the states for their approval, is there? Further restraining and confining clauses to prevent the misunderstanding or abuse of its powers. This was the high fence around the powers. They also confined the misuse of those powers by the federal government. Back to the First Amendment . . . separation of church and state? Not a chance. Here is what it has to say about our RIGHT to religious freedom, opening and operating schools, etc: "Congress shall make no law respecting an es- tablishment 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." Can you read anything in there which allows them to close a school or arrest a minister or principal? Of course not. They would prefer you didn't know what our rights are so they say we are guaranteed "separation of church and state." We are GUARANTEED the right to establish any religion and to practice it freely as our hearts and consciences dictate. Our Founding Fathers were religious and Christian and believed religion was something between an individual and his Maker. In 1789, Congress passed an ordinance which declared that: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education should ever be encouraged. (Encyclo- pedia Americana) Religion most certainly not an issue in which the government could stick its nose. This is one of those restrictive clauses to prevent an abuse of power! Is it possible that those who work for government don't know what our Constitution says either? It is not only possible but very definitely true. This even though we have ordered ALL persons who work for a government entity, at any level, to take an oath to support the document. Being men of wisdom, the Founding Fathers specified that no religious test be a qualification to office. (Art VI, Sec 3) They were firm believers in religious freedom. For the sake of illustration, let's say that you and three or four friends get together. You all decide to worship Isis or a stone or a jaguar, . . . . the idol is unimportant. The fact remains our Constitution says you have that RIGHT! And further you have the right to exercise  your religious belief freely. Your friends may not agree with you or your belief and I may not agree with you. Even government may also disagree with that belief. Yet they cannot interfere with your doctrine or the free exercise thereof. First Amendment guarantees that. There are no changes further on in our Constitution to say they can obstruct your belief. This is why they want you to believe there is a guarantee of separation of church and state. Going back to our opening illustration, the right to establish and practice a religious belief was violated. Also the right to freedom of speech and of the people to peacefully assemble. All First Amendment guarantees. How do they get away with it? Because they feel power and might makes right! And we are fast becoming illiterate and ignorant concerning our Constitution. At the same time we are becoming a nation of wimps. It's becoming apparent as we look around there are no real men anymore. No one has enough starch in their backbones to tell these people enough is enough. What has happened to the "land of the free and the home of the brave?" These people are seizing and assuming powers which we did not grant to government at any level. Can you imagine this happening in this country let's say 200 or even 100 years ago? People would have been up in arms. And rightly so. A quote from an encyclopedia might shed some light on what our government has in mind for the United States . . . "In Russia, education is a state monopoly. No religious schools (apart from a few seminaries for the special purpose of training priests) or private schools of any kind are permitted to exist. (And we've seen what is going on there. They have people who don't know how to wind a watch.) Teaching in the schools must emphasize scientific materialism and exclude any consideration of the super- natural." (Encyclopedia Americana) God is a no-no! If you have a chance to see the original or true copy of our Constitution, you will see WE THE PEOPLE on the first line of the Preamble. We agreed to and established the Constitution giving permission and authority for our government. This is a fixed and immutable document changeable only by the ones who gave the authority for government . . . WE THE PEOPLE. (Art V) There is nothing in the document which gives the right to anyone in government to enlarge their sphere of power or authority. By our permission, they were given authority and jurisdiction to govern. When they exceed granted powers, they are breaking the law and violating the trust we imposed in them. By such an act their jurisdiction ceases. Alex- ander Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers (No. 78) that 'No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Consti- tution can be valid.'  Let's take a look at how the federales are observing this guaranteed right to free exercise of our religious beliefs. Would it surprise you to hear that they don't believe we have it? The Internal Revenue Service, part of the executive branch, have regulations which have a direct or implied consent of the Congress. They can decide if a church doesn't conform to what they term is a conventional religious belief. By a simple letter they can then say you are not a church and take away your tax exempt status. Further restrictive clauses mentioned in the preamble to the Bill of Rights has a hollow ring. I'll have to admit it really generates confidence in our government, doesn't it? Looking a little further in our Bill of Rights, two more amendments will make our point. The Ninth and Tenth are clear to anyone that no power or authority not expressly granted can be seized. These were included just in case someone in government decided our Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't mean what they say. Let's see what they say and you will understand why governments really wish they didn't exist. Article IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Not difficult to understand, are they? Then why were the people arrested or the church and school closed? We have to reassert ourselves and assume the power of directing our governments to their intended roles. We have elected people to Congress who break the law by violating constitu- tional restrictions and the oath they took to support the document. Throw them out of office! Drastic? Not at all. Look at what they are doing to us. Those appointed deserve to have civil suits filed in federal courts for violation of our constitutional rights. Relying on Supreme Court decisions as a guide to filing suits in court is normally a false hope. First, the Supreme Court has NO authority under our form of government to make law. Their decisions are just that . . . decisions . . . only opinions! The basis for federal suits are the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers determined and established for our new government. Nevertheless, there are many older decisions which do substantiate our stand. Intensive research will find those. By staying strictly within constitutional authority, they have no where to turn to disagree or argue against.  Petitions for Redress of Grievances can be effective. Send them to all members of Congress together with anyone else in the bureaucracy with a suggestion of power. This is First Amendment right. Send any Petitions for Redress of Grievances via certified mail. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucrats have 'lost' mail when they haven't had to sign for it. Phone calls and letters to members of Congress are a must. Ask questions about assuming powers we did not confer . . . about the oath they have taken to support the document etc. Before someone takes me to task for the statement that the Founding Fathers were Christians, let me point out the last page of the Constitution. When the delegates affixed their signatures before it was sent to the Congress for its submission to the states we find: "DONE in Convention, by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven . . . ." The opening illustration was not hypothetical. Incidents like this are occurring with frightening regular- ity. Media reports show there are over 6000 cases now pending between religious organizations and the federal government. To allow these people to destroy our country and form of government, all good people need to do is nothing! What will you tell your posterity? How will you justify it? Or is it simply that you don't want to become involved . . . let your children or grandchildren worry about it them- selves? There is a point where the exercise of their power stops . . that's when we stand firm and say don't cross this line. Young minds are fertile ground. The state wants control of education to mold these minds to their view. They WANT robots. Let's deny them the power. PLEASE SUPPORT SHAREWARE BY REGISTERING WITH THE AUTHOR.