If you do not follow the instructions concerning our policy on external links
your submission will be sent to the spam folder.
During the past few years, I have been researching for a book I'm writing, in doing so, I find articles on the Constitution and the "true meaning" of the wording according to the mindset of the Founders. One can read the Constitution and interpret it to mean whatever they like, but the fact remains that the wording only has one meaning, the meaning the Founders gave them and "in their time".
Many rulings by the Courts over the years have done just that, interpreted the wording to match "their views" not the views of the Founders. Early Courts did uphold the wording as they were from that same period. Many argue that the meaning of the wording changes over time, true, it does but we have to go back to the Founders time to understand "their meaning", not today's meaning of the wording. The Constitution IS NOT a living document, it is "written Law". Laws can only be changed by Congress, not the Courts.
Article I of the Constitution explains the duties of the Congress, Article II lays the path for office of Chief Executive and Article III covers the Courts. We all can clearly see that all three, along with the rest of the Constitution, has been misinterpreted to mean anything that one or a group want them to mean... but the fact remains, they still have only one meaning and that is the meaning the Founders gave them 235 years ago.
Which brings me to this "meaning" of the Freedom of Religion clause. After explaining to others for some time now that the meaning of;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;",
the Founders meant that God, the Bible and the Church were to placed ABOVE man and Government. That Jesus Christ was to be the only "King" and Law giver to rule over the Church, not man nor Government. This is why the "Freedom of Religion" was the very first wording of the very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But groups and the Courts have twisted the meaning saying that " the wording of years past do not hold the same meaning as today". Which might be true, but one has to read the wording and "understand" it as it was written, not what it might seem to mean in today's mindset.
Here is an article that a friend sent me in my search for the true meanings of the Constitution. It explains how the Founders came to word the 1st Amendment the way their did and how they came by this meaning. Funny how one sentence can invoke some much turmoil, but this 51 page article covers it and leaves one to wonder why the Courts can not "rule" according to the true meaning of the Amendment.
( It is in a PDF format and you can download and save it, which when I find documents of this sort, I do just that before they "disappear".)