Freedom from What???

Cause for Concern (Church/State)

What Jefferson intended as an explanation of the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion was misapplied by the Supreme Court to the Establishment Clause, a mix-up that has resulted in the very interference with religious free exercise that Jefferson argued against.

by Focus on the Family Issue Analysts

The so-called "wall of separation between church and state" has done more damage to America's religious and moral tradition than any other utterance of the Supreme Court. While the First Amendment was originally intended to prevent the establishment of a national religion and thus ensure religious liberty, the Supreme Court's misuse of the "separation of church and state" phrase has fostered hostility toward, rather than protection of, religious freedom.

This phrase has been used by the Court to outlaw Ten Commandments displays in public buildings, prayer and Bible reading in schools, clergy and even student invocations at school events, and other public acknowledgements of God. Such decisions clearly negate the Founding Father's presupposition of America's Christian identity. It is time to return the First Amendment back to its original meaning and revive the rich faith-filled heritage of America's public life.

National Religion

Many of the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution conditioned their approval on the further inclusion of a guarantee of individual liberties such as the freedom of religion. Some of those states already had taxpayer-supported "establishments" of religion. The new Congress took up these calls for action and drafted the Bill of Rights for further approval by the states. James Madison, a major participant in the debate and drafting of what ultimately became the First Amendment, introduced the initial draft on June 8, 1789 as discussions began in the House:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

After further discussion, other versions of the amendment were offered, including: "no religion shall be established by law," "no religious doctrine shall be established by law," "no national religion shall be established by law" and "Congress shall make no laws touching religion." Finally, the House sent back to the Senate this version: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." The Senate took the House version under advisement, but then offered its own version: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." When the House and Senate met to resolve their differing versions, they settled on the ultimate version of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."¹
What is clear from the records of the First Amendment debates, as well as Jefferson's own "wall of separation" language, is the Founders' aversion to Congress establishing a national religion, not the religion-scrubbing tool the Supreme Court has made of it over the last 60 years.
A few Supreme Court justices have resisted the current perversion of Jefferson's "wall" metaphor and its effect on the Establishment Clause. In his 1985 dissent from yet another Supreme Court decision invoking Jefferson's "wall" to strike down Alabama's "moment of silence" statute, Chief Justice Rehnquist had this to say:

"It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years."

In another by-product of the Everson decision, the Supreme Court decreed that the First Amendment, which begins "Congress shall make no law …," would henceforth apply to the states as well as the federal government. That's how the Supreme Court gained authority over religious expression in local schoolrooms, graduation ceremonies, football games, courthouses, city councils and thousands of other state and local venues. Although that particular issue is too large to address here, it is further evidence of the Supreme Court's massive power grab in the Everson decision.

Copyright © 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/law-and-the-courts/separation-of-church-and-state/cause-for-concern.aspx

Honoring Our Imperfect Fathers - Fathers Day Sunday June 19th 2011

by Roberta Rand Caponey

Studying the rows of Father’s Day cards, nothing seemed to fit. The predominant images were of fly fisherman, golfers and football players. What about antiques aficionados? Opera lovers? Theater goers? — these were the activities that appealed to my dad. Other than an occasional tennis match, sports were just not his thing. More problematic were the sentiments on the cards: “To the Greatest Dad Ever!” and “To the Father Who’s Always Been There . . .”

As much as I loved my dad, he was not emotionally available, and often critical. Surely there was a Father’s Day card with a more “moderate” message. I finally settled on a funny card with a non sequiter about a five-speed trout . . . pretty lame.

Few of us can claim our fathers resembled the idealized role models from family sitcoms of the 50’s: Hugh Beaumont, Robert Young, Fred MacMurray and Ozzie Nelson, to name a few. Even the iconic actors who played them were flawed — Robert Young was an alcoholic. Fred MacMurray, a notorious skinflint.

But the fact that these men, and our own fathers, had feet of clay should not preclude them from being honored for what they did to provide for their families.
Today, bookstores have shelves of books devoted to parenting and the critical role fathers play in shaping their sons’ and daughters’ personalities. But when you and I were growing up, there were no how-to books, no family counselors. Only the rich and famous got “therapy,” and families were expected to keep their dysfunction to themselves. Every day, men went to the office or the factory and brought home the proverbial “bacon” so their wives could stay home and rear the kids in relative security. Fathers may or may not have interacted with their children at the end of the day, may not have provided emotional nurture — operating out of their own emotional deficits from childhood. But they performed their duty as they understood it.

It’s easy to forget that our moms and dads weren’t all-knowing, all-seeing super humans, but people on a learning curve, just like you and me. Sure, they made their mistakes. But they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.

Many of our parents are products of a generation that didn’t wear its heart on its sleeve. In this present era of “feeling our feelings,” we tend to judge stoics as humorless, emotionally stunted, even uncaring. But in earlier generations, stoicism and a “stiff upper lip” were considered admirable qualities — invaluable character traits in tough times like the Great Depression and World War II. There was no “alternate” way of looking at a devotion to duty. It was doing one’s duty that put food in children’s mouths and defeated tyrants like Adolph Hitler.

So, for those of you whose fathers were not as “touchy feely” as you wish they had been, cut them some slack this Father’s Day; judge them not for what they failed to do, but love and honor them for what they were able to give. Nothing heals our wounded hearts like the grace we extend to others. There's a special name for people who forgive one another: "grownups."

Source -   Focus On The Family     view link at http://www.focusonthefamily.com/midlife/adult_children/adult_children_and_parent_relationships/honoring_our_imperfect_fathers.aspx

A gallery of church history

I am interested in any pics of the congregation, pastors and their families or the church. You may feel free to submit the pictures which will be used at the discretion of the Administrator.  As I learn more information about the pictures I will update the descriptions. In the event that I have an incorrect spelling of a persons' name or incorrect date, please leave a comment for me to consider.

Note: all comments are moderated by the Administrator.

Thankyou  - Pastor Tucker

Construction of the church

Date?

The Church sign says " North River Road Community Church"
The church originally met in a school house on North River Road.
That building is still in exisitence which is located just around the corner from Pollina Avenue

The  Eisenhower Family

Mid 1960's

When did the church become part of the Pilgrim Holiness denomination?

Rev. Dunn (Pioneer Supervisor for the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist) and

Pastor David Hovis standing in front of the church

When did the church become a "pioneer work" in the Wesleyan Methodist denomination?

What year was the parsonage built?

L. to R. 

Rev. F.E. Mansell (Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist President) Rev. and Mrs. Hovis and

Rev. Dunn

Event - burning of the parsonage mortgage

The following is what was written on the back of the pic.

Judy Crawford - Sunday School Secretary

Event - "Soldier of the Cross" 

honoring Clara Counterman

Picture shows her family that came for this special service.

NOTE:  Looking for a Pic of Thelma Hubert who was also honored in this service for the same reason. 

The church has become an independent organization as of ?