Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on August 13, 2003, 06:11:09 PM
-
My buddy and I are having an e-mail discussion of the separation of Church and State. He sent this. Quite interesting.
Here's what some founding fathers said....
"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 Jay, Founding Father,
1st Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and one of the
men most responsible for the
Constitution.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government - far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
- James Madison, Founding Father, US
President and chief architect of the
US Constitution.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry, Founding Father, signer of
the Constitution.
"Is it not, that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? 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 Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
- John Q Adams, 6th US President
in 4th of July speech.
The term "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other amendment thereof - or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the 1st amendment guarantees that it will not promote, nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. This is a far cry from expunging religion from the public square, which is the slant the ACLU and other non Christian groups would have you believe our founding fathers intended. From the quotes above, what do you think their intent was with regards to government and Christianity?
I'm still working on the return salvo.... this should be good!
-
Interesting.
Are you going to share your response?
-
Of course!
-
Right and left have always exsisted. Dig up lines from the other side.
-
Good idea Frogman. Get on it. :)
-
MT,
The quotes by the founding fathers you listed in your original post speak for themselves. If you check further I think you will find that those sentiments were not unusual. Most of their compatriots felt the same way. However much the country may have changed in the last 200 years, THAT is how they felt about the matter at that time.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Consider this, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and many were Masons. They felt that they had won the War through God's grace, help, etc. However, they still felt that the Church and State should be seperate. I feel that their intention was not that God be totally removed from anything to do with the government. It was to make sure that there would be no official state religion such as the Church of England. For many years it was against English law to practice Catholicism or types of Protestantism that was different than Anglicanism. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that any American could be any religion they liked and there would be no government favoritism towards one or the other.
IMO, this wasn't about removing the 10 Commandments from courtrooms, most of the Fathers would have approved of that, it was about preventing any a state-sponsored religion such as the Church of England, or letting a religion have as much control over the government as the Vatican did over France. Much of Europe was still dealing with the effects of religious wars even in the late 1700's.
-
It will be interesting to see your responce MT :) Personally I think your friend hit that one out of the park. And that you should quit while you're ahead and gohead and join the Republican party. Come on, you know deep down inside that you want to!!! :D
-
The supposed statement by madison never exsisted. It was made up. No proof that he said it has ever been found.
Real statements by James Madison:
"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."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian.
and
Patrick Henry, made a number of statements suggesting that our nation was founded on belief in God, and that it was important to acknowledge God in civic affairs, but Henry lost the battle to put religion in the Constitution. More to the point, Henry was an anti-federalist, and vigorously opposed the Constitution when Virginia discussed ratification. Quoting Henry to prove things about the constitution is like quoting the chairman of the Republican National Committee to prove things about the platform of the Democratic party.
-
The FF's were hypocrites. Who cares what they thought. All that matters is that we do what is right.
eskimo
-
Most of the FF's were deists. not theists. Thats why you see no refrences to the bible in the constitution. Thats why you also have "natures's god" and "laws of nature" in the Declaration of Independence.
-
Well.... First of all, I will not even start this unless you promise to never take what I write as a personal attack. I said this before and I meant it. I envy your passion. I have no need to coerce you into thinking otherwise than you think now. I would be happy to trade verbal or written barbs with you as long as you recognize these facts. Our friendship is inviolate and I won't risk that which is dear to me.
Now that all that mushy hippie crap is out of the way...You wrote "From the quotes above, what do you think their intent was with regards to government and Christianity?"
Based on the quotes above I think it is pretty clear that John Jay, James Madison, Patrick Henry and J.Q. Adams (hardly a founding father BTW)were staunch Christians. Well la-de-da! It wasn't difficult to find an equal number of quotes from Founding Fathers of equal or greater stature that say just the opposite.
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
More Jefferson:
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Finally let's hear from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
............sooooooo
Who's FF's trump here? It would seem that the guys who actually wrote the documents were pretty clear in there thinking. Even Madison whom you quoted as extoling the virtues of the 10 commandments made it plainly obvious "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together"..
Your turn.
-
Regardless of whether they were theists or diests, it still doesn't answer the question of what the purpose of the seperation of church and state was to them. Was it to prevent any involvement of religion/God/god in the government (such as the 10 Commandments in a courtroom or prayer in schools) or was it to prevent the establishment of an official "state religion" such as the Church of England?
I believe it was the later. And if it was, is the current language of the law what they had invisioned? You must admit that the FF's were fairly anti-establishment. Sounds to me like they didn't like religion, but believed in God and felt he was very important to the foundation of the country.
-
and religion in this country today is nothing but the establishment. they run their church's like companys.
-
here is what the constitution says
Amendment I
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
sounds like Dunes take on it is dead on. as I read it says gov't can make no laws on establishing, or interfering with the exercise of religion.
so those that take this to mean no prayer in school, 10-comandments out of the schools and courthouses, are wrong. as a matter of fact they themselves are in violation because the are 'prohibiting the free practice of'
no law respecting an establishment of religion- I take this to mean the gov't won’t get involved in how churches are set up. this is the only reference I found in the constitution that came anywhere close to 'separation of church and state', and it was clearly designed to keep gov't out of the church and not vice-versa.
..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof- so as I read it all these rulings limiting when and where you can practice or proclaim your beliefs are in clear violation of the language (and IMO clear intent) of the constitution
anybody else read those differently? any other reference to religion in the constitution I missed?
-
i thinkl the big stinky sloppy mess with prayer in school is that they want to do it at mass events , and every morning on the anouncements. When you do that it actually respects a established religion.
When i was in high school we had a moment of silence. that worked out fine. I am an atheist i could think of porn i downloaded the night before, and the religious people could pray to themselves.
-
In fact, the 1st amendment guarantees that it will not promote, nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. This is a far cry from expunging religion from the public square, which is the slant the ACLU and other non Christian groups would have you believe our founding fathers intended.
Public property and institutions are common property of all citizens, paid for and maintained by taxes coercively collected from them under the threat of violence.
Supposedely the taxes are collected to pay for the functions related to the government.
Forcing people to pay for religious accutrements and rituals (which may be contrary to their religion) is a clear case of establishment of a religion - specifically prohibited.
"...each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
Right - he advises that we should all strive for it personally[i/], not have it imposed by the government.
miko
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
no law respecting an establishment of religion- I take this to mean the gov't won’t get involved in how churches are set up.
You got it wrong.
-
the government isnt involved in how chruch's are set up.
-
Frogm4n: the government isnt involved in how chruch's are set up.
No. It is only involved in converting our courthouses and schools into christian churches - by adorning them with religious acoutrements and conducting prayer services and religious oaths on the taxpayer's dime.
miko
-
i'm suprised you gamesters don't know how to game the game.
take the question of the 10 commandents in schools or govt buildings, you have made 10 paintings depicting each commandment and hang them up and call it "art", no one is against "art".
xmas , dec 25 , is really the celebration of the winter solstice, and xmas trees are pagan anyway.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government - far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
- James Madison, Founding Father, US
President and chief architect of the
US Constitution.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry, Founding Father, signer of
the Constitution.
Your friend has been reading too much from revisionist historian David Barton. These two quotes are false. Barton has even admitted that he did not have a valid source for these quotes, but instead he says that they are statements that these gentlemen could have said because he thinks they are consistent with their character:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20
Madison was a staunch church-state separatist. His essay Memorial and Remonstrance[/i] demonstrates that pretty clearly.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Personally I think your friend hit that one out of the park.
…it looks like he didn’t get all of that one after all. MT had him played perfectly and makes the routine grab, well short of the warning tack.
Just another noisy out.
-
Nice reply MT!
I am with you on this issue. I seen no need for any influence from ANY religion in our government.
Do we get to see his reply?:D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
MT,
The quotes by the founding fathers you listed in your original post speak for themselves. If you check further I think you will find that those sentiments were not unusual. Most of their compatriots felt the same way. However much the country may have changed in the last 200 years, THAT is how they felt about the matter at that time.
Regards, Shuckins
Yes your rigth shuckins in 200 years, 90% of the country when polled still consider themselves Christanins. I can see how much we've changed.
-
Seems like the First Amendment is clear cut. It states Congress shall make no laws establishing religion. This is the operative clause of the sentence. To me, this means there are no federal laws saying it is illegal to not participate in an official state religion, i.e you gotta pay taxes cause that's the law, but you don't hav'ta go to state church on Sunday. Not sure this is a great example, but this could be compared to mandatory DUI school attendance as part of a judge's ruling in the case of drunken driving. It's the law you attend as part of the deal. This law is on the books, and not a judge's interpretation.
Concerning removing prayer from school. Imo, there is no constitutional basis for this. Congress has not legislated mandatory prayer in public schools, in accordance with the first amendment. A public school principal doesn't have the law making authority to become involved one way or the other, neither enforcing nor denying prayer. This is why we have a Congress, made up of representatives and senators, so power is not invested in a single person, such as a school principal.
It would seem to make more sense, to allow individual communities to deal with the prayer issue as they see fit, and this would be in complete accordance with another right as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the freedom of assembly...the right of like minded citizens to assemble in the pursuit of whatever peaceable and lawful agenda they choose...life, liberty and happiness.
This is a great country, where people have freedom to live anywhere they feel community standards are suited to their personal philosophy and beliefs. If a community is predominantly Christian, for example, does it not violate constitutional spirit to deny prayer in public schools? What about in a Muslim community, where prayer is a religious requirement for orthodox Muslims.
I believe parents should be the guiding authorities, where school officials, working together with the PTA, set guidelines. This is where the most amicable solutions could be worked out, to accomodate everyone's religious concerns. I see a big problem with the idea of a centralized, federal bureaucracy setting the same standards for all public schools. If anything, this is detrimental to education, dulls the edges of thinking, and dismisses individuality as irrelevent. Outcome based education is an example. And if you need an example of good schools, look no further than religious schools.
From my somewhat limited experience with all this, I gather that the real issue has little to do with prayer offending or fomenting conflict among diverse religions. But rather it is a power exercise played out in the courts, somewhat like a game of chess, with lawyers as the pawns running defense and setting up moves for the royal court of Federal and Supreme court justices.
It is also my opinion that those who initiate the lawsuits, are, for the most part, more interested in causing trouble than they are with seeing justice done.
Les
-
Prayer has not been removed from schools.
That is has been is mere right wing propaganda and left wing ignorance.
What the law says, right now, is that people in positions of authority cannot lead prayer services nor can prayer services be unavoidable within reason.
For examples:
A teacher leading a prayer service at the start of class is illegal because the teacher is a person of authority and the service would be unavoidable.
A student leading a prayer service over the intercom is illegal because by using the intercom it appears to have official endosement and is unavoidable.
A student lead prayer service in an unused room during lunch is legal because it is both avoidable and lacks any official endosement.
A student praying silently in class (say, prior to a test) is legal because it bears no hint of official endosement.
-
About removing the Ten Commandments from court houses:
Well, we have a big deal going on here in Alabama right now, with Judge Roy Moore and his monument. It has already cost Alabama taxpayers over $130 million, and Justice Moore intends to take the issue all the way to the top.
I don't know...it'll be interesting to see the outcome if it does make it to the Supreme Court. Again, imo, having the monument does not violate the establishment clause. Judge Moore put it there and payed for it himself, not Congress. It's his courtroom. I don't know what leeway judges have when it comes to what is on display in their courtrooms, but I'm guessing they have the final say.
Moore's justification for having the monument there is to acknowledge God, Who is the ultimate judge. I'm not a particularly religious person, although I do acknowledge God. I have no problem with the monument being there, provided it's in compliance with safety standards and doesn't offer any hazards to life or limb.
Just out of curiosity, and not to become involved in a prolonged debate...why does the presence of the Ten Commandments in a court house cause such a big deal, i.e why do some folks want it removed?
Les
-
God can own my soul, but I wouldn't trust Him to run my city!
My interpretation of the founding of this country is that, since the colonies were composed of various peoples escaping from various religious persecutions, that it was recognized that the government could only stand if it was run irrespective of the matters of Church. While certain enclaves of people may have incorporated fundamental morality based on their particular religion into their local and state laws, for the most part these differences were kept separate from the federal government (just ask the Mormons and Hawaiians). Even commonly held violations of morality, such as murder, are violations of state law rather than federal law.
Regarding church and state, there are more than a few prison inmates who petition regularly for ganga use to be permitted as part of the rastafarian religious practice. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Prayer has not been removed from schools.
That is has been is mere right wing propaganda and left wing ignorance.
What the law says, right now, is that people in positions of authority cannot lead prayer services nor can prayer services be unavoidable within reason.
For examples:
A teacher leading a prayer service at the start of class is illegal because the teacher is a person of authority and the service would be unavoidable.
A student leading a prayer service over the intercom is illegal because by using the intercom it appears to have official endosement and is unavoidable.
A student lead prayer service in an unused room during lunch is legal because it is both avoidable and lacks any official endosement.
A student praying silently in class (say, prior to a test) is legal because it bears no hint of official endosement.
Thanks Karnak . Kinda figured that is the way things are, and I understand prayer and personal belief is, and probably should be a private matter in school. It certainly should not be intimidating or forced upon others.
I do recall one news item from several months back, where a school bus driver was fired for leading a prayer on the bus. She filed suit because of the dismissal, and I suppose the case is pending. Haven't heard anything about it lately. In this case however, she asked the parents in advance by mailed letters, if they were OK with the prayer. Every one of them said yes, please do this. Every single one of the students wanted this also.
So this would seem to be an instance where everyone wanted this, and the school became unconstitutionally involved by denying prayer. Though the federal courts directed no mandate directly, it seems like some school principals are totally confused, and thus, to avoid confrontation of any kind, they broad-brush the issue by denying what, here, amounted to a unanimous concensus of the participating citizens. Sorta like a zero tolerance policy.
Taking a look at what was accomplished in this case, a bus driver lost her job, lawyers were called in, parents and children were disappointed or downright angry, and justice was not served, at least until the whole thing is reviewed in court. Let's hope, if any good came from it, that some of the gray areas are investigated in more detail.
Lawsuits have public school authorities mired in confusion, is this not so?
Anyhow, what I was talking about in the first post was, why not let the parents and teachers decide how they want their community school to operate? After all, they're the ones living in that community, and if we get back to the freedom of assembly language in the Bill of Rights, it would seem to be in accordance with our constitution.
Les
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
and religion in this country today is nothing but the establishment. they run their church's like companys.
Sadly, you are correct. These very religions are who Jesus himself, hated the most.
-
Poor choice of words Rude. Respectfully.
Jesus didn't hate.
-
I do recall one news item from several months back, where a school bus driver was fired for leading a prayer on the bus. She filed suit because of the dismissal, and I suppose the case is pending. Haven't heard anything about it lately. In this case however, she asked the parents in advance by mailed letters, if they were OK with the prayer. Every one of them said yes, please do this. Every single one of the students wanted this also.
So this would seem to be an instance where everyone wanted this, and the school became unconstitutionally involved by denying prayer. Though the federal courts directed no mandate directly, it seems like some school principals are totally confused, and thus, to avoid confrontation of any kind, they broad-brush the issue by denying what, here, amounted to a unanimous concensus of the participating citizens. Sorta like a zero tolerance policy.
Of course, we have to assume that all the parents and all the children were for this 100 percent. And then, what about the new kid on the bus? If you were the only student on the bus who didn't want to pray to Jesus Christ (since we can assume with probably 100 percent accuracy that this was Christian prayer, and most likely evangelical) how easy would it be to resist, particularly in High School? Or, how easy would it be to have the child converted to "the one true religion," by daily, public indoctrination?
I believe, actually, that most serious Christians on the path of saving souls want prayer in school for the benefit of those not saved, vs their children who are already in the fold. A chance to show others the "light" and establish Christian solidarity. Just my opinion, but I do come from a family of Southern Baptists. Also, my half-sister in Tennessee found it hard to resist even the non-school related social pressures of her Christian community and "found" Jesus through not wanting to be an outsider. I know for a fact it wasn’t because of some deep inner discovery.
However, what if it was a Muslim prayer or a Jewish prayer that your child would have to sit through every morning? Some mandatory Tora readings? Kneeling towards Mecca at the appropriate times? A sacrifice of goat’s blood to Baul?
What if your son or daughter was one of a handful of "religious minority" students and because of his/her obvious refusal to participate in the group behavior became the target of scorn? What if one day she or he decided that she'd rather convert, because all her friends are pushing her, and it's just easier to get along and it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal anyway? Or, hell, Wicca is actually pretty cool and a lot more exciting than following that Jesus fellow your parents push on you at home!
I imagine you would rather not have your child face that pressure every day, and would think that was an improper use of school time. But when you're part of the majority, the individual rights of others are never that important.
Charon
-
Wicca? That's dangerous territory. Have you ever used a Ouija board? When I was going to Christian school, they said ouija boards were occult ways to call up or communicate with ghosts. And you know, stupid as this may seem, I believe it.
It scared me ****less. And I never experiemented with ouija boards again, especially after watching "Thirteen Ghosts" (old movie)
;)
Les
-
Wicca? That's dangerous territory. Have you ever used a Ouija board? When I was going to Christian school, they said ouija boards were occult ways to call up or communicate with ghosts. And you know, stupid as this may seem, I believe it.
It scared me ****less. And I never experiemented with ouija boards again, especially after watching "Thirteen Ghosts" (old movie)
Les
I'm not an expert, but I think Wicca is actually old school paganism (fire earth water, earth goddess, etc.) and not Satanism or the occult. Someone who does know could probably explain the differences.
I tend to be an agnostic, secular humanist, but as part of that I accept the possibility that a spirit world might exist. God may exist, Jesus may have actually been the son of god, the devil and ghosts may exist -- maybe not. I've played with Ouija Boards in the past, and they can be surprisingly accurate. I would tend to think it is the subconcious actions of those participating that lead to the answers, but who knows :) One of those things that keeps life, books, movies and televison a bit more interesting.
Charon
-
God bless you Charon. That was heavy, but cool. Whatever you think or do, know that God is by your side and will never let you down. I guarantee it, because I'm a bad sinner, and God has plans for me. He has protected me in some very bad situations. To pray, all you have to do is say please God, help me through this. It counts, even though it might not be "official.":D
Les
-
i wonder how quickly some of you would get your panties in a bunch if your kids were told in school to roll out the carpet, face and east and pray to allah for a difference...
-
Fd Ski, are you a Russian? Fd Ski doesn't believe in God!!!
He's probably a Russian Jew. Those are good people, the best on the Earth. Wish I knew more of them.
Les