An Ole Seagull’s “Separation of Church and State 101”

From the get-go, the Ole Seagull must state his basic belief that the “created” have no power or authority to change the laws of the “Creator.” The created either follow the laws of the Creator or don’t and must live with the result(s) of their decision.

Obviously, who or what the “Creator” is plays a critical role. To an Ole Seagull, even one in the winter of his years and with all his glaring faults, the answer is contained within the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That “Creator” is God.

“Come on Seagull, do you really believe that God created everything?” Absolutely! Through the spring, summer, fall, and into the winter of his years, from the sun coming up every morning to its setting every evening, and all that naturally transpires in between, he has observed an orderliness to the universe that continually testifies to the certainty of God’s creation and His blessing.

“Next you’re going to tell us that you believe that “the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it sure beats the alternative of a Godless “inbreeding monkey evolution” left to itself without God’s hand to direct it.

“Well, God didn’t create this country?” Actually He did. Relatively speaking, it just took a “few years” for Columbus, to “discover” that which God had created and which, at the time of his discovery, was occupied by “Native Americans” who had discovered it centuries before.

“Come on Seagull, what I meant is that God didn’t fight the Revolutionary War which established us as an independent nation or write the U.S. Constitution upon which its government is based.” As an Ole Seagull understands it, that war like all others before it and since, was fought by beings that God created as they exercised their option of free choice. In like manner the U.S. Constitution was written.
“If the U.S. Constitution, the document upon which our government is based, says there should be no prayer in schools, no nativity scenes on public property, that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public buildings, Christmas should be called “Winter Solstice,” etc., shouldn’t that be the law of the land?” Absolutely, and if a frog had wings it should be able to fly but a frog doesn’t have wings and the Constitution contains no such language!

“Gotcha there Seagull, how about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says, among other things, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ” Are we talking about the same First Amendment that Congress proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789? “That’s the one.” Was that same Congress still in session, not two months later, on November 16, 1789? “Sure it was.  Why?”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation.  In that proclamation he stated, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Can any reasonably thinking person really believe that the same Congress that encouraged the “people of the United States” to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God,” intended that the First Amendment they had proposed, not two months prior, be used as a tool to take prayer out of schools, remove the ten commandments from the walls of all public buildings etc.? It flies in the face of logic.

“Well, the Supreme Court of the United States says it does!” Is that the same “Supreme Court” that issued the Dred Scott Decision? “I guess so. What was that decision about?” The fallibility of mans law, the imperfection of those who interpret it, and a testimony to what can happen when the created change the laws of the Creator.

Leave a Comment