Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DipStick on November 27, 2005, 09:37:37 AM
-
Forsaken Roots
Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.
It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.
Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."
Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."
Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."
Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.
In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?
He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.
He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congressof the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."
Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.
Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:
"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!
It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.
Here is the prayer that was banished:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country. Amen."
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."
Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.
In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.
In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.
The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."
Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?
Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots. I , Mary Jones, encourage all who read and agree with the words herein, share it with others, so that the truth of our nation's history may be told.
Mary Jones
-
Theocracy or Democracy?
The seperation of church and state is a corner stone of this republic.
Where should our kids get their religious indoctrination and education? Public School or Church?
-
I do not believe that the government should form a religion... I do believe that it is perfectly fine to mention god tho. Just not to say everyone has to be of a certain religion.. Athiests can consider themselves god if they like. "In god we trust" could mean to them (or anyone)anything they wanted.
I also believe that the government should not use extorted money to form a school system and then not allow parents to spend that money on any school they choose.
to many.. the school system is a government religion/indoctrination monopoly.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Theocracy or Democracy?
The seperation of church and state is a corner stone of this republic.
Where should our kids get their religious indoctrination and education? Public School or Church?
It does not exist
There is NO seperation of church and state in the consitution ANYWHERE.
That claim that there is,is a myth
And not just a little myth either as its closer to an outright lie then anything resembling the truth.
And its not even close to the intent of the clause you are wrongly attemting to refer to
If that were its original intent as I am not particularly religeous I would support it because that was what the original intent was. But it is in fact not its original intent or anything even closely resembling it.
ITs original intent was to not have one official "Church of the United States" that is what was meant when they wrote "Congress shall pass no law respecting and establishment of religeon"
Hang you are so far off base on this one you might as well be in another galaxy.
By far the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you.
Its not even close.
I suggest you re read your history
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not believe that the government should form a religion
And that is exactly what is ment in the first ammendment.
"Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 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"
-
You might notice they did not require anyone to be a Christian, instead guaranteed religious tolerance and the right of choice. Lets honor their wisdom and dont try to pretend that they really kind of wanted everyone to go to their church.
-
Originally posted by Dago
You might notice they did not require anyone to be a Christian, instead guaranteed religious tolerance and the right of choice. Lets honor their wisdom and dont try to pretend that they really kind of wanted everyone to go to their church.
Exactly what is intended at the writing
So there could be no, official "national church of the united states"
As there was a "Church of England"
As that was one thing they were trying to escape
-
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.
"At the time of the founding of the American nation, a preponderant number of the leading figures in the revolutionary struggle against Britain, opposed black chattel slavery. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson, to name the most prominent, all organized to end a practice and policy they knew to be inconsistent with, and in fact, subversive of the principles upon which that Revolution had been based. Among this group, Benjamin Franklin was the most outspoken and active in his opposition to the practice of African slavery. In addition to countless public and private expressions of his opposition to human slavery, Benjamin Franklin founded the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1789. The following parody written by Franklin against those who argued in opposition to the Pennsylvania Abolition Society's memorial to the First Congress, to end slavery in America was published in the March 25, 1790 edition of the Federal Gazette.
To the Editor of the `Federal Gazette.'
MARCH 23, 1790.
SIR,-- Reading last night in your excellent paper the speech of Mr. Jackson in Congress against their meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar one, made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's Account of his Consulship, anno 1687. It was against granting the petition of the sect called Erika, or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it: perhaps he has not seen it. If, therefore, some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only show that men's interests and intellects operate, and are operated on, with surprising similarity in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African's speech, as translated, is as follows:--
``Allah Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his Prophet.
``Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labors of our city, and in our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more compassion and more favor due to us as Mussulmen than to these Christian dogs? We have now above fifty thousand slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If we, then, cease taking and plundering the infidel ships, making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one-half; and the revenue of government, arising from its share of prizes, be totally destroyed. And for what? To gratify the whims of a whimsical sect, who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even manumit those we have.
``But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the State do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And, if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their countries; they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to; they will not embrace our holy religion; they will not adopt our manners; our people will not pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as beggars in our streets, or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage? For men accustomed to slavery will not work for a livelihood when not compelled. And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries?
``Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian States, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception? Even England treats its sailors as slaves: for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized, and confined in ships of war; condemned not only to work, but to fight, for small wages, or a mere subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition, then, made worse by their falling into our hands? No: they have only exchanged one slavery for another, and I may say, a better; for here they are brought into a land where the sun of Islam gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor; and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home, then, would be sending them out of light into darkness.
``I repeat the question, What is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free State; but they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labor without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing, and they are treated with humanity. The laborers in their own country are, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged, and clothed.
``The condition of most of them is, therefore, already mended, and requires no further improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's Christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. If some of the religious mad bigots, who now tease us with their silly petitions, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity, that moved them to the action: it was from the conscious burden of a load of sins, and a hope, from the supposed merits of so good a work, to be excused from damnation.
``How grossly are they mistaken to suppose slavery to be disallowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two precepts, to quote no more, `Masters, treat your slaves with kindness; slaves, serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity,' clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden, since it is well known from it that God has given the world, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of right as fast as they conquer it. Let us, then, hear no more of this detestable proposition,--the manumission of Christian slaves; the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have, therefore, no doubt but this wise council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition.'
``The result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this resolution: `The doctrine that plundering and enslaving Christians is unjust, is, at best, problematical; but that it is the interest of this State to continue the practice, is clear; therefore let the petition be rejected.'
``And it was rejected accordingly.''
``And since like motives are apt to produce in the minds of men like opinions and resolutions, that the petitions to the Parliament of England for abolishing the slave-trade, to say nothing of other Legislatures, and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion? I am, sir, your constant reader and humble servant,
HISTORICUS''
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.
Alexander Hamilton and John Jay
Return to Contents
Others of the original founders of the nation, like Washington, Hamilton and Jay all worked and organized to rid the newly formed nation of the evil institution. In 1786, just prior to the constitutional convention in 1787, Hamilton and others signed a petition to the New York state legislature urging an end to the slave trade, which he identified as ``a commerce so repugnant to humanity, and so inconsistent with the liberality and justice which should distinguish a free and enlightened people.'' This petition was widely circulated in the press and otherwise. Hamilton, along with John Jay, its first President, was instrumental in organizing the ``New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves and Protecting Such of Them as Have been or may be liberated.'' Hamilton served as its second President, succeeding John Jay. He held this position, throughout the whole of his term as secretary of the treasury, and up until his death in 1804.
He also, along with Washington, and Gen. Nathaniel Greene, considered the active, and ongoing effort to organize black regiments into the Continental Army, as a key step in bringing about emancipation. Hamilton wrote the following, in support of a project of Gen. Washington, Col. John Laurens, and Gen. Nathaneal Greene for recruiting South Carolina blacks to serve in the Continental Army, in a letter in March of 1779, to John Jay, then President of Congress. (Washington, Greene and Col. David Humphreys had already successfully done the same with several regiments of blacks from northern states).
I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from the prejudice and self-interest. The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind, furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticibility, or pernicious tendency, of a scheme which requires such sacrifices. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out, will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their swords. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and, I believe, will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity, and true policy, equally interest me in favor of this unfortunate class of men....
Other of the founders uttered similar, if not stronger, sentiments. John Jay wrote in 1780:
An excellent law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one for the gradual abolition of slavery. Till America comes into this measure, her prayers to Heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression, but it is just. Were I in your Legislature, I would prepare a bill for the purpose with great care; and I would never cease moving it till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member. I believe God governs the world; and I believe it to be a maxim in his as in our court, that those who ask for equity ought to do it.
Jay would write again in 1785, on the eve of the effort to create the Constitional form of government ultimately adopted:
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
A year later, Jay would draft a memorial to the New York Legislature on the abolition of slavery, signed by Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Livingstone, among others, addressing the issue of slavery, which opened with the following declaration:
Your memorialists, being deeply affected by the situation of those who, although free by the laws of God, are held in slavery by the laws of this State, view with pain and regret the additional miseries which these people experience from the practice of exporting them, like cattle, to the West Indies and the Southern States.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.
The Virginians
Thomas Jefferson (despite his own ambigious position on the question), along with Franklin, and George Washington, consistently in his public writings, pointedly defined the views on slavery of the majority of those who fought to establish a nation grounded in true republicanism in North America.
In 1774, Jefferson was selected to draft the instructions for the Virginia delegation to the first Continential Congress, and which were later printed under the title ``A Summary View of the Rights of British America.'' Interestingly, the ``Summary'' is very similar to the section addressing the issue of slavery that was in the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence written two years later.
For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those Colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesties negative; thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.
George Mason, also from Virginia, who would initially oppose the Constitution's adoption and refuse to sign the document at the end of the convention in Philadelphia in 1787, at least until an agreement to include the Bill of Rights was reached, also reflected this viewpoint. In fact, South Carolinians and Georgians who supported the maintenance of the institution of slavery viewed Virginia's opposition as a greater threat than opposition from ``northern states'' on this issue. In the following, taken from the debates at the Constitutional Convention in August of 1787, Mason delivered what was one of the strongest attacks on the institution, as reported here in the notes of James Madison.
This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns, not importing alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the Tories.
He mentioned the dangerous insurrrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily, and the instructions given by Cromwell to the commissioners sent to Virginia,-- to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had, from lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the General Government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.
They didnt guarantee slavery in the constitution either.
your talking apples and oranges
-
"Kind of silly really."
Long after we are all gone, thousands of years from now people will still argue over their beliefs about some god(s) or another. It's probable that today's religions will be looked upon as backwards as we today see the pagan religions of the Greeks or Norsemen.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Kind of silly really."
Long after we are all gone, thousands of years from now people will still argue over their beliefs about some god(s) or another. It's probable that today's religions will be looked upon as backwards as we today see the pagan religions of the Greeks or Norsemen.
J_A_B
You may have a point. the Greeks and Romans viewed the Jewish religeon as being "primative":)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They didnt guarantee slavery in the constitution either.
your talking apples and oranges
Nor does it guarantee special acknowledgment of a christian church. It does recognize slavery however, article 1 section 2. (those 3/5ths of a person they are talking about are slaves).
-
James Madison
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Thomas Paine
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
Ethan Allen
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words."
Thomas Jefferson
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors"
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1796
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
It does not exist
There is NO seperation of church and state in the consitution ANYWHERE.
That claim that there is,is a myth
And not just a little myth either as its closer to an outright lie then anything resembling the truth.
And its not even close to the intent of the clause you are wrongly attemting to refer to
If that were its original intent as I am not particularly religeous I would support it because that was what the original intent was. But it is in fact not its original intent or anything even closely resembling it.
ITs original intent was to not have one official "Church of the United States" that is what was meant when they wrote "Congress shall pass no law respecting and establishment of religeon"
Hang you are so far off base on this one you might as well be in another galaxy.
By far the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you.
Its not even close.
I suggest you re read your history
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I respectfully disagree, Drediock. The above reference to religion in the Constitution, Article VI; is written in the form of an unequivocal denial of any place to be given to religious considerations in determining qualifications for public office, including Judges. The adoption of this proposal in effect, precluded the possibility of any church-state union or the establishment of a state church. Hence, Seperation of Church and State.
Next, the First Ammendment..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 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.
It's pretty basic, and that's where the implied notion of 'freedom of religion in the constitution' stems from. Freedom OF religion is analogous to Freedom FROM Religion.
The aspect of "freedom from religion" is recognized in the courts since the forming of this nation. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly in a variety of ways. It boils down to this: There can be no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM government-promoted, government-sponsored, government-permitted, government-mandated and/or government-endorsed religion.
Period.
Try to wrap your brain around the 'seperation of church and state' from this aspect..
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which church you wish to attend, when you are required or expected to attend a church.
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which religion to belong to, when you are required or expected to belong to a religion.
There is no freedom of religion just because you don't have to profess a religious belief to run for or hold public office, so long as you are required or expected to be a member of an acceptable main line religion.
There is freedom of religion only when there is the freedom to be or not to be religious, freedom to belong or reject, freedom to do or not do.
There is freedom of religion only so long as there is freedom of and freedom from religion. Freedom has to have both of these elements or it isn't freedom.
Choice, choice to be religious or not to be religious, choice to believe or not to believe, choice to accept, be a part of, embrace, profess, any religion you may want or no religion at all, and not be punished, given extra burden, discriminated against, denied, etc, by government based on that choice. Freedom of religion places the religious and non-religion on the same level playing field.
And THATS the basis of 'seperation of church and state'.
-
pwnt
-
You might want to do some research rather than just believing whatever churchy stuff shows up in your inbox.
Those types of mailings are made up lies all the time. Posting such regurgitated drivel because it reinforces your bias is just sad.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Kind of silly really."
Long after we are all gone, thousands of years from now people will still argue over their beliefs about some god(s) or another. It's probable that today's religions will be looked upon as backwards as we today see the pagan religions of the Greeks or Norsemen.
J_A_B
thousands of years from now? Theres a lot of people who already take this view. If you explain some of the stuff in the bible to the average Asian (buddhist) they think its hilarious - especially those with strong buddhist beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I respectfully disagree, Drediock. The above reference to religion in the Constitution, Article VI; is written in the form of an unequivocal denial of any place to be given to religious considerations in determining qualifications for public office, including Judges. The adoption of this proposal in effect, precluded the possibility of any church-state union or the establishment of a state church. Hence, Seperation of Church and State.
Next, the First Ammendment..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 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.
It's pretty basic, and that's where the implied notion of 'freedom of religion in the constitution' stems from. Freedom OF religion is analogous to Freedom FROM Religion.
The aspect of "freedom from religion" is recognized in the courts since the forming of this nation. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly in a variety of ways. It boils down to this: There can be no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM government-promoted, government-sponsored, government-permitted, government-mandated and/or government-endorsed religion.
Period.
Try to wrap your brain around the 'seperation of church and state' from this aspect..
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which church you wish to attend, when you are required or expected to attend a church.
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which religion to belong to, when you are required or expected to belong to a religion.
There is no freedom of religion just because you don't have to profess a religious belief to run for or hold public office, so long as you are required or expected to be a member of an acceptable main line religion.
There is freedom of religion only when there is the freedom to be or not to be religious, freedom to belong or reject, freedom to do or not do.
There is freedom of religion only so long as there is freedom of and freedom from religion. Freedom has to have both of these elements or it isn't freedom.
Choice, choice to be religious or not to be religious, choice to believe or not to believe, choice to accept, be a part of, embrace, profess, any religion you may want or no religion at all, and not be punished, given extra burden, discriminated against, denied, etc, by government based on that choice. Freedom of religion places the religious and non-religion on the same level playing field.
And THATS the basis of 'seperation of church and state'.
Well I HAD a nice leangthy post dismantling your arguement until a brownout induced reboot on my computer ruined it all.
I really dont feel like retyping it all right now. maybe I will later.
But basically I dont see how you can say so many right things and still draw all the wrong conclusions.
No matter what way you slice it. Original intent was that there was to be no official "church of the United States"
And that no official church teachings were to be used as a test for office.
In fact Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).
Now you are going to try to tell me the judges in 1960 knew more about what the founding fathers intended then the founding fathers themselves did when they actually wrote it almost 200 years before?
LMAO I think not
there is no "separation" clause even in your
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Its just not there and your reaching for a hidden meaning that just isnt there.
It only means they cant test you by saying things like "Do you beleive in the teachings of one specific church or another" and thats the long and short of it.
There is no clause barring religeon from government. Only that the goverment cannot form its own religeon and use it as a qualifier for public office.
there is no "Separation of church and state" other then that
Its not there and it does not exist.
As I have said before I am not particularly religeous myself and really I have nothing to gain by taking my position.
And in fact it wasnt very long ago that I would have taken your position which is a position I have discovered as being wrong
But I am a beleiver in original intent of the constitution. Particularly in light of the way polititions and judges have managed to twist and distort it to mean what THEY want it to mean and not how it was intended.
Just as you are doing now
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nor does it guarantee special acknowledgment of a christian church. It does recognize slavery however, article 1 section 2. (those 3/5ths of a person they are talking about are slaves).
and nobody has said it is.
But... before, diring and Since the framing of the constitution "God" is meantioned over and over and over again in almost too many "official" documents to count.
And remember. During the time of the writing of the constitution it wasnt a matter of a "Christian" church being one religeon.
Protestants, Orthadox, Catholic were ALL considered to be DIFFERENT religeons.
Now we all tend to lump them all into one religeon "christanity" but back then they were all considered different religeons.
What people try to do. and usually incorrectly I might add on this as well as many other subjects is to use todays mindset to interpret the mindset of 50,100,200 etc years ago.
-
Dred, you didn't read my post.
Couldn't have.
impossible.
Cause if you had, you'd understand that 'freedom OF religion' cannot exist without freedom 'FROM' religion.
That's not debatable.
And it's IN the constitution. Twice. And the intent is absolutey to establish a seperation between church and state.
But don't take my word for it.. mayhaps you'll take Jeffersons word on it. He was CERTAINLY in a position to know the framers intent; dontcha think? ;)
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress is thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
From the Constitution OnLine (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)
Now, I'm not sure where in particular your assumption of and/or parroting of christian right rehotoric is headed, but if your trying to convince me that America was created as a religious secular State, I strongly beg to differ. Further should you be advocating an increased permissiveness with regards to religious activisim inside the halls of government in the United States of America today I'd be forced to class you as a religious whackjob as dangerous as any other religious whackjob that demands devotions to god for the good of all... you know; Osama's Boys.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Suave
[yadda yadda yadda yadda
George Washington
The Farewell Address
In his Farewell Address, the first president advised his fellow citizens that "Religion and morality" were the "great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens." "National morality," he added, could not exist "in exclusion of religious principle." "Virtue or morality," he concluded, as the products of religion, were "a necessary spring of popular government."
Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men."
Perhaps you would care to see it in his own handwriting
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg)
Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Madison
On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.
John Adams
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."
Adams's Fast Day Proclamation
John Adams continued the practice, begun in 1775 and adopted under the new federal government by Washington, of issuing fast and thanksgiving day proclamations. In this proclamation, issued at a time when the nation appeared to be on the brink of a war with France, Adams urged the citizens to "acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation; beseeching him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offences, and to incline us, by His Holy Spirit, to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction
Care to see the original Document? (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006493.jpg)
"
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state."
In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
Source- Library of CongressSource- Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html)
Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
John Adams and John Hancock:
"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Continued....
-
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775
Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”
Justice Joseph Story:
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
I can go on
See. I can quote too!
-
So whats the deal Dred?
You a religious whack job advocating religious control of government?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Dred, you didn't read my post.
Couldn't have.
impossible.
Cause if you had, you'd understand that 'freedom OF religion' cannot exist without freedom 'FROM' religion.
That's not debatable.
And it's IN the constitution. Twice. And the intent is absolutey to establish a seperation between church and state.
But don't take my word for it.. mayhaps you'll take Jeffersons word on it. He was CERTAINLY in a position to know the framers intent; dontcha think? ;)
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress is thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
From the Constitution OnLine (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)
Now, I'm not sure where in particular your assumption of and/or parroting of christian right rehotoric is headed, but if your trying to convince me that America was created as a religious secular State, I strongly beg to differ. Further should you be advocating an increased permissiveness with regards to religious activisim inside the halls of government in the United States of America today I'd be forced to class you as a religious whackjob as dangerous as any other religious whackjob that demands devotions to god for the good of all... you know; Osama's Boys.
Cheers!
I indeed did read it. and your still wrong.
You quote a letter by Jefferson where he mentions a "Separation of church and state which is where everyone gets dillusioned into thinking its in the constitution. It is in fact not.
But even in quoting the letter you fail to grasp what he ment when he said that.
Again, you are trying to apply todays mindset to a different mindset of over 200 years ago.
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
So whats the deal Dred?
You a religious whack job advocating religious control of government?
LMAO not at all. not even in the slightest.
I am only barely what even the most llibeal could call religious.
I am more spiritual
Put it this way. While I voted for him I do see Bush as a religeous zealot.
But for the moment I saw him as the lessor of two evils
Told ya. I beleive in original intent. And I just dont like the way original intent keeps getting skewed and twisted by revisionists to suit their own likes
I may not always like what those intents were myself. But they are there
-
It's like talking to a brick wall.
One more time. Read his letter. What did he say? Did he not state precisely that there is a seperation between church and state? Was he not one of the principal framers of the constitution? And, was he not ALSO a religious man? If what you postulate as truth was truth then why did he NOT grant the disposition and special protection the Baptist Ministers sought?
Derd, yer off base, man.
What are you advocting.. or are you just flat refusing to consider that the right wing chriistian rehtoric you've been brainwashed with could be wide of the mark?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which church you wish to attend, when you are required or expected to attend a church.
There is no freedom of religion just because you can pick which religion to belong to, when you are required or expected to belong to a religion.
There is no freedom of religion just because you don't have to profess a religious belief to run for or hold public office, so long as you are required or expected to be a member of an acceptable main line religion.
There is freedom of religion only when there is the freedom to be or not to be religious, freedom to belong or reject, freedom to do or not do.
There is freedom of religion only so long as there is freedom of and freedom from religion. Freedom has to have both of these elements or it isn't freedom.
Choice, choice to be religious or not to be religious, choice to believe or not to believe, choice to accept, be a part of, embrace, profess, any religion you may want or no religion at all, and not be punished, given extra burden, discriminated against, denied, etc, by government based on that choice. Freedom of religion places the religious and non-religion on the same level playing field.
And THATS the basis of 'seperation of church and state'.
Nicely said. :aok
-
To help understand some of the ideas that the Framers were discussing while crafting the Bill of Rights, I suggest picking up a copy of "The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins" by Neil Cogan.
To give you some flavor of the thoughts regarding the 1st Amendment see the link:
The Complete Bill of Rights (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019510322X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-0973981-7239209?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S01U&checkSum=9tO5Pr9V51AMfW4CRX14gKBnfuiuU77kelgrGywOX7w%3D#reader-link)
I think it is clear that the intent was to keep any one religous group or alliance of groups from dictating how or what people worship. In other words, government should stay out of religon...government should not be used to proselytize or force beliefs on its constituents.
Saying that the 1st Amendment only means that there should not be an official "Church of America" falls a little short when you read the minutes of the Founders debates. A little closer would be that there should not be an official religon of the US...Christian or otherwise.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They didnt guarantee slavery in the constitution either.
your talking apples and oranges
Yes, they did guarantee slavery in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Fugitive Slave Law enacted in 1793 was passed to enforce the Constitutional provision that slaves escaping from their masters would be returned. This was part of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which Constitutionally recognized the rights of slaveowners, and set limits on slavery as well. It also (as previously noted) allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for reasons of representation in Congress.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 became a rallying point during the 1850s for abolitionists, and was held by men like Abraham Lincoln to be as much an indicator of the thoughts and intentions of the founding fathers as the Declaration of Independence, greatly influencing them in the times leading up to the Civil War and the eventual Emancipation Proclamation.
-
Religion of George Washington:
Washington attended the Episcopal church where the Rev. William White and the Rev. James Abercrombie were rectors. There were many rumors relating to Washington's religous views (or lack of them) and on several occasions the rectors were sent letters asking about those views:
"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant." - William White
"With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof...Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning" - James Abercrombie
"His behavior [in church] was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude." - William White
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship." - William White
"Sir, Washington was a Deist." - James Abercrombie
-
In 1831, the Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson gave the following sermon:
"When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity."
-
“How has it happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?” - John Adams
-
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” - Thomas Jefferson
If anyone believes that Jefferson was really a "true" Christian, then they need to read his revised Bible and see if it meets with Christian dogma. It is available at:
Jefferson Bible (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all)
I think most Christians will notice some "important" ommisions. There are no miracles...no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding masses, no water to wine, no rise from the grave...if all that is OK for a Christian, then he's a Christian.
-
James Madison quotes:
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their shorty history.”
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taqxes.”
“The establishment of the chaplainship to Cong[res]s is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”
-
Ben Franklin -
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see. But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity."
“Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
-
Ethan Allen -
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words...denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."
-
Thomas Paine -
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
"Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.”
"When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence."
"The story [Bible], so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it...It is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian Mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients."
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
It's like talking to a brick wall.
One more time. Read his letter. What did he say? Did he not state precisely that there is a seperation between church and state? Was he not one of the principal framers of the constitution? And, was he not ALSO a religious man? If what you postulate as truth was truth then why did he NOT grant the disposition and special protection the Baptist Ministers sought?
Derd, yer off base, man.
What are you advocting.. or are you just flat refusing to consider that the right wing chriistian rehtoric you've been brainwashed with could be wide of the mark?
Nooo Im not.
I've read the letter. A bunch of times. But your misinterpreting what he meant by "Separation fo Church and state."
and the Term never once appears in the consitution itself. Only in that letter of which you misinterpret.
because Im no wide off the mark.
consider this. This arguement has only really seriously been going on for the last 50 years or so. For the better part of 150 years these things we argue about today were never really an issue as it was largly understood what they meant.
So now your saying that only over the last 50 years or so have we discovered that the way things have been since the very founding of the nation was wrong. that it was THEY who misinterpreted the constitution?
LMAO I dont think so
what your arguing is nothing short of revisionism because you dont like the way it was.
I am sorry but I just do not buy into revisionist history just because one segment of the population doesnt like that history.
As I said before. I once bought into your very arguement. It wasnt so long ago that I would very likely have made the same arguements you now make. Then I discovered I was wrong in my thinking.
And now in looking back over the last 50 or so years of change thats taken place in favor of your arguement. I do not see us as being better off for it as a nation but worse.
-
crowMAW,
And I can come up with more quotes by many of the same people that counter yours.
then you again mine. and Me again yours and so on and so forth
Thanks but I'd rather not.
BTW I got many of my quotes from the Library of congress and the original documents
Example
(http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006493.jpg)
-
If you knew your history, Adams was locked in a struggle with the buisness (shipping/trade intrests) of the time that were doing virtually all their business with England. And, Adams was not getting much sympathy from the 'working folk' for a confrontation with England over English Navy ships pressing british born seaman out of American ships.
Read the first paragraph closely. It's a plea for moral support regarding infracftions by England on the high seas, pressing american seamen into RN Service. The rest is just pious head bobbing for the 'moral majority' of the time. It's a period piece propaganda broadsheet for the masses.
Egads.. what woman has filled your head with this BS? New girlfriend? Wife's mother's brother?
Jeeze... brainwashed, I tell yah. ;)
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” - Thomas Jefferson
If anyone believes that Jefferson was really a "true" Christian, then they need to read his revised Bible and see if it meets with Christian dogma. It is available at:
Jefferson Bible (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all)
I think most Christians will notice some "important" ommisions. There are no miracles...no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding masses, no water to wine, no rise from the grave...if all that is OK for a Christian, then he's a Christian.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this about Revelations:
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it
as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of
explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams... I cannot
so far respect [the extravagances of the composition] as to consider
them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is
not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational
ideas... What has no meaning admits no explanation... I do not consider
them as revelations of the Supreme being, whom I would not so far
blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at
the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be
understood by those to whom they were addressed." --Thomas Jefferson
to Alexander Smyth, 1825.
-
Just using the word "god" is not establishing a religion... you can make god anything you like...it is the supreme bieng...
for athiests... it would be... themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If you knew your history, Adams was locked in a struggle with the buisness (shipping/trade intrests) of the time that were doing virtually all their business with England. And, Adams was not getting much sympathy from the 'working folk' for a confrontation with England over English Navy ships pressing british born seaman out of American ships.
Read the first paragraph closely. It's a plea for moral support regarding infracftions by England on the high seas, pressing american seamen into RN Service. The rest is just pious head bobbing for the 'moral majority' of the time. It's a period piece propaganda broadsheet for the masses.
And this is something to consider as well, Dred. There are public declarations which are frequently political in nature and then there are private feelings. Most of my quotes are from personal correspondence and private writings of the people in question. For example, the quote from Franklin regarding Christ's divinity, in the letter he includes a postscript:
I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and as I have never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.
Since we are questioning the Christianity of the Founders, I'll stick by their private correspondence to make that determination.
As for the intent of the 1st Amendment...it is hard to refute the Congressional Record of the day showing their disscussions and the trail of changes.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Just using the word "god" is not establishing a religion... you can make god anything you like...it is the supreme bieng...
for athiests... it would be... themselves.
Sorry...I am no god...I'm unconvenced that any exist. Please don't use government to proselytize to me eventhough Christians are in the majority in this democracy.