Hello, Friend of Freedom! First off, let me wish you a Merry Christmas! I know some of you may choose other holidays to celebrate and not choose to celebrate Christmas, and some of you will not celebrate at all. Hey, that’s why is great to be in America! We have the freedom to celebrate our faith as expressed for centuries, and we have the freedom to do nothing at all.

That is why the topic of Church and State is so important.

Last week, we discovered that the often-quoted phrase to suppress people’s expression of faith in the public square, i.e., Separation of Church and State, is not in any of our founding documents.

For this week, let’s dig a little deeper to see how our founding fathers came up with the wording for the First Amendment.

First of all, we should examine the recordings of thoughts and actions by Congress in chambers. Did you know that every official word and act that occurs in congressional chambers is recorded in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (which is required by the CONSTITUTION in Art. i Section 5,:3.)? Therefore, we have the discussion of the ninety founding fathers in their first federal Congress.

The dates from June 8th to September 25th, 1789, reveal intense discussion in regard to religion and its expression in the new Nation they were bringing to fruition. The foundation of every Article in the Constitution began with this foundational thought that they were seeking to break the rule of the crown, which they found oppressive. They wanted to build a national government that would prevent what had happened to them under Great Britain’s reign from ever being implemented against future generations, not just their own.

One key area of rule that the King exercised was control of the church. This started under the reign of Henry VIII. Long story short, he wanted a divorce from his wife, who could not produce a male heir, which, by the way, was expected in every realm of society. Henry was pious and really did not have issues with the Catholic church, but became obstinate when he was not allowed to pursue a divorce. There is a lot here, and it can be studied on its own. The result was that Henry appointed his own ArchBishop and created the Anglican church, of which he was now Pope if you will. He confiscated all the monastery holdings in England and redistributed the lands and wealth to his newly appointed cabinet members and, of course, himself.

So here we have the foundation of what resulted in the way religion was practiced during our American Revolution situation. The government directed the affairs of the church, and the King was really the leader of the church. In charge of appointing Bishoprics and clergy that were paid to do the job. (Reader, this is a condensed version, but it is accurate). So, when the colonies were created, the King sent clergymen paid by the government to fill the pulpits in colonial America. Their allegiance was to the King (George III.) and not to the people. He was carrying on the traditions of Henry VIII.

As the founding fathers met in congressional session, according to their records, the discussion was that they were living under a legally established religion by the national government to the exclusion of all others. They sought to do away with government control of faith (religion). Very simply put, they often repeated in the congressional record of conversations that Congress cannot officially establish any one denomination in America. As James Madison put it, “Nor shall a national religion be established.”

The word denomination and religion were interchangeable at the time. So, looking at the history of WHY we have the FIRST AMENDMENT, it was due to the error that Great Britain created from the sin of Henry Vlll. By that, I mean he destroyed the connections of the Catholic church and in his lust (one of the seven deadly sins), and Henry was a lustful man. He created a religion designed for himself! He also had many mistresses.

But back to the First Amendment.

Now that we understand their thinking and what they wanted it was clear that the government could not be involved in promoting one religious persuasion above another. There were four versions of the First Amendment before settling on the one we have. The first version read, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second one added any (particular) denomination, and the third, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another.” Finally, we have, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When it was finally accepted and approved, it contained two separate clauses on religion and how the exercise thereof should be handled. The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE forbade the federal government from establishing a single religion or national denomination. The second is the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, which prohibits the federal government from interfering with PUBLIC expressions of people’s faith. Please note that the First Amendment controls the actions of the Federal Government, NOT the actions of citizens.

Summing it up, it is clear the founding fathers did not want the government to create a state church, but they did expect religion to be regulated in public spaces, but that Biblical Principles and values lived out IN society, NOT restricted to observance in a separate building once a week on the Sabbath.

We will continue our study after Christmas!

Until next time…

Allen

The post Church and State, Part II appeared first on Granite Grok.

New Hampshire is not a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and no cities or towns are either. It passed a law prohibiting the local enforcement of nutty anti-second Amendment rules emanating from the Biden administration. And now there is long-shot legislation to kick the EPA to the curb.

As introduced, HB1294 would prohibit the state of New Hampshire from enforcing Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

 

This bill states that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has no constitutional validity in this state, and requires that the New Hampshire department of environmental services provide for all environmental protection in this state.

For the sake of accuracy, this is correct. Like much of what exists inside the Beltway, EPA is an extraconstitutional entity, but mitigating its influence will not be as easy as passing HB 1294. The tyranny of indifference to bureaucrat despotism is not unlike the culture of insouciance related to election tampering. It is easier for people to live with the devil they know than to wrestle with the problem. HB1294 might as well abolish the Federal Department of Education.

 

Because the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is not authorized by any article or amendment of the Constitution of the United States, all regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency are void in New Hampshire. The state and it’s political subdivisions, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency shall have no force of effect in New Hampshire.

 

A few observations about picking fights.

State Legislators’ role is to build barriers between unconstitutional overreach and local control. To protect their voters from the Feds and their State. In fact, someone should teach a class to people claiming to be Republicans about how to inform constituents who ask them to introduce bills about why it might not be the best thing. This would likewise aid them in explaining why they voted against bills with tentacles proposed by other legislators.

It is also their job to protect the locals from home-grown tyranny by using the state’s power to protect natural rights from local overreach.

Additionally, legislators must grasp whether a proposed bill – based on the balance of seats held by either party – will likely do more damage than good. A recent pro-life bill that has no chance of passing (while well-intentioned) packs the Democrat’s magazines on an issue Republicans have been struggling with at the ballot box. It is a good bill with a proper and moral purpose, aligned with party values – but with zero chance of passage, it is a landmine Republicans will have a hard time dodging come November.

Making New Hampshire a sanctuary state from gross federal overreach is always something that should be on the radar, but HB1294 is good for a few blog posts – perhaps a bit of spin in the national spotlight (applause from one side, scorn, and disbelief the other) but not much else. It is dead on arrival with some potential for a cameo role in the upcoming Democrat Produced Play – Republicans are nutty extremists.

That said, and with an appropriate number of political contacts and readers disenfranchised, I am also a big fan of going big or staying home. Democrats do that better, and I’m sure I’ve bitched about it a few hundred times. The Left is not afraid to throw a hail mary on every play. They show the deep ball and somehow get someone across the middle for a first down. They move the ball. Take points when they can.

But New Hampshire Republicans have been scoring points. They have incrementally expanded liberty in the Granite State with almost no majority to speak of despite lousy attendance. They removed regulatory barriers, lowered taxes, and made New Hampshire a beacon in the Northeast for businesses, occupations, and families. In small but great strides, the Dems will completely unravel the first day they have the majority and a Governor who will sing whatever they put on her desk.

I know. It sounds like I’m contradicting myself, but I am not. You have to know your audience and your odds. Dems do not tolerate absences on critical votes, but terrorizing your caucus doesn’t play on the right. Dems can go long on every play, even with a one-vote majority; Republicans can’t. Sorry, that’s just a fact. You’re not getting HB1294 through. And the pro-life bill isn’t going anywhere but into Dem campaign ads, and it could cost the GOP its majority unless leadership finds a way to thread the needle on messaging.

It can be done, and we’re here to help, but as much as I’d like New Hampshire to be a Sanctuary State from a long list of Federal agencies, this is not the legislative crowd to whom you should sing that song. But don’t toss it out. Save it for a different day. You might find yourself with a veto-proof majority as we did in 2011/2012, in which case, you still need to be careful about the long balls you throw but also be ready to throw a lot of them.

 

The post New Hampshire Bill Would Make the Granite State a Sanctuary From the EPA appeared first on Granite Grok.