NationStates Jolt Archive

How about something completely not biased?

"We cannot know what the founders would have thought about the "values issues" that are touchstones for cultural conservatives today—abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, the right to die—but we certainly can infer what Jefferson would have thought about claims that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the foundation of American law. The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.

But then you could go back really really far and find that the first human rules were not created by religion, but were in fact the convenient inventions of mere mortals.

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.

True. However, does that matter ? There is no reason to dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the source. That an idea is first mentioned in the Bible does not immediately make it "wrong" or "evil" after all.

However, if one takes a good idea from one source, it does not automatically mean one agrees with everything that source says. Just that you like that particular part.

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.
After the Revolution, we wanted to be just like the British!

After the Revolution, we wanted to be just like the British!

What are you talking about! I'm all American! *Hides British Flag*

The very fact that the Consitution uses the term "Creator" tells us exactly what the founding fathers meant. Nearly all were active members of their churchs and in many original colonies you had to prove memebership in good standing in SOME church to be elected to public office. Separation of Church and State, which is not in the Consitution was meant to protect the Church, not the state by Jefferson's own words. Purely meaning the federal government could not mandate which church you attended. Consitutionally speaking there isn't even a problem with State mandated churchs, there just can't be a federal one. Jefferson said teh most important thing a child should learn from public school is God. The signers of the Consititution opened every day with prayer. That this country was built on God and the Bible is not some theoretical argument but known historic fact. People are so desperate to not be accountable to God that they will jump through every hoop imaginable to erase God from this country and ignore historic truth and presedent. Its very sad. If any of the founding fathers could see what had become of their nation I think we'd hear a wail of grief that carried from shore to shore!

The very fact that the Consitution uses the term "Creator" tells us exactly what the founding fathers meant. Nearly all were active members of their churchs and in many original colonies you had to prove memebership in good standing in SOME church to be elected to public office. Separation of Church and State, which is not in the Consitution was meant to protect the Church, not the state by Jefferson's own words. Purely meaning the federal government could not mandate which church you attended. Consitutionally speaking there isn't even a problem with State mandated churchs, there just can't be a federal one. Jefferson said teh most important thing a child should learn from public school is God. The signers of the Consititution opened every day with prayer. That this country was built on God and the Bible is not some theoretical argument but known historic fact. People are so desperate to not be accountable to God that they will jump through every hoop imaginable to erase God from this country and ignore historic truth and presedent. Its very sad. If any of the founding fathers could see what had become of their nation I think we'd hear a wail of grief that carried from shore to shore!
Excuse me? Please find the word Creator in the Constitution.

And do you know anything about Jefferson?
"The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

Here's the answer to that damned question. Pulled it from this very site, but the work's not mine(and I have no idea who's it is). But read it.

"Our founding fathers were devout Christians who based this nation on the Bible? Oh my. Well, lets get some opinions from the Founding Fathers themselves, eh? Arranging in alphabetical order. Why? Because I like it.

Lets start with John Adams, one of my favorites.
John Adams (1735-1826)
Second President of the United States (1797-1801)

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)


Alright, so Jonny is a bit hard-core. I'm sure friendly Mr. Franklin will be the very opitime of a good Christian!

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
American public official, writer, scientist, and printer who played a major part in the American Revolution

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Benjamin Franklin (attributed: source unknown)

Um...alright. Thomas Jefferson will prove the US is a Christian nation!

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The third President of the United States (1801-1809)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Richard Rush, 1813

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

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. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Damn it Tommy, shut up! You're not helping me prove to these nice people that Christianity was built into our nation by the Founding Fathers! In fact, you're being down-right hostile towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular!

I can only hope that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, can save us!
After all, it is that document that is the supreme law!

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 in blood for centuries.
-- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Thats not a good start, James....

I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel.
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16

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; in 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 allies.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
-- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
-- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
-- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W. Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

And smacking down a faith-based initiative! How dare you!


Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
-- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom. Also in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.

Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can ot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
-- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief


AAAAAHHHH!!! Washington, you are my only hope!

George Washington (1732-1799)
The first President of the United States (1789-1797)

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.
-- George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress, expressing opposition to a congressional plan to appoint brigade chaplains in the Continental Army (1777), quoted from a letter to Cliff Walker from Doug Harper (2002) ††

Well. Screw me. I guess the Founding Fathers weren't religious nuts. How about that."


Check and Mate.

Indeed.

How about something completely not biased?

"We cannot know what the founders would have thought about the "values issues" that are touchstones for cultural conservatives today—abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, the right to die—but we certainly can infer what Jefferson would have thought about claims that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the foundation of American law. The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?
As far as Jefferson goes, it might be worth bearing this little quotation in mind:
"[the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly, for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."
Not necessarily anti God, but opposed to power elites using God as an excuse to coerce and bully agreement from the rest of the population, it would seem.

Well. Screw me. I guess the Founding Fathers weren't religious nuts. How about that.


OMG!

*jumps from cathedral tower*

Most of the founding fathers were deist. Not that it matters. Just because the FF did it doesn't make it right.

If they were all devout Christians I would still want the U.S. to seperate chruch from state.

The founding fathers also supported the extension of slavery as an economic necessity for an expanding colonial state. The constitution may have its moral foundations in the word of God, but I recall that there is no section of the Bible which commands that Christians should force non-believers to conform to their social views.
The usage of a higher power accedes not specifically to God, but rather to the uncaused cause and higher power that any serious examination of the universe or of the inner character of humanity will reveal. It is a mere defence against both an atheistic state and a more liturgically-minded theocracy.

And, yes, Kroisistan should be a hero.

The very fact that the Consitution uses the term "Creator"...

BS. The word "Creator" never once appears in the Constitution. Neither does "God" or "Jesus"

There is exactly one reference to "our Lord"...

...and that's in the phrase "...Year of our Lord..."

Yup. Referencing the date the Constitution was signed, which is the convention both the religious and the secular used then.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

See for yourself. Other than the date, there's not one reference to a higher power.

Here's some more on all that: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Of course, religious folk never let facts, logic, and history stop them before.

And, yes, Kroisistan should be a hero.

Well that's going in my signature.:)

But the honor belongs to the person who actually wrote what I posted. Just to remind y'all, I didn't do the research, I just had the foresight to copy and paste such an awesome post and save it on my computer about a year ago. I remain a humble archivist.

BS. The word "Creator" never once appears in the Constitution. Neither does "God" or "Jesus"

There is exactly one reference to "our Lord"...

...and that's in the phrase "...Year of our Lord..."

Yup. Referencing the date the Constitution was signed, which is the convention both the religious and the secular used then.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

See for yourself. Other than the date, there's not one reference to a higher power.
I'm guessing that the Constitution was being confused with the Declaration of Independence. I'd rather it just be from all around ignorance of both documents, though. Partial knowledge is sometimes so much worse.

Here's some more on all that: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Of course, religious folk never let facts, logic, and history stop them before.
I'd really like to see those on the Religious far right defend themselves. I've been reading the Mother Jones magazine and though I understand they are on one side of the issue, some of you guys are creepy scary.

Western values are, admittedly, based in a large part on the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition (more on the side of the Christian interpretation of course). This being the case, it follows logically that the United States, one of the most identifiable symbols of these values, is based in a large part on biblical roots. It sucks, especially when a conversvative/literalist biblical interpretation misses the point, but there's not much we can do about it.

Western values are, admittedly, based in a large part on the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition (more on the side of the Christian interpretation of course). This being the case, it follows logically that the United States, one of the most identifiable symbols of these values, is based in a large part on biblical roots. It sucks, especially when a conversvative/literalist biblical interpretation misses the point, but there's not much we can do about it.
Actually, there's a lot we can do about it. The founders specifically left out the words God and Creator to give us the tools necessary for the seperation of Church and State.

You know, after reading some of the quotes from the founders, I rather like them. As was previously mentioned, they're not necessarily anti-religion, but they didn't want it getting out of hand, and dictating what people should do...
So much different than now... I may have liked America back in those days. Pity I never studied American history because I figured it'd just be a lot more of the same as modern history.

Well, my constitution does mention God in the very first sentence, but it is the german one :-)

US laws do draw legitimacy from things like the ten commandments though, else there would be no good reason for laws against things like killing on request as Dr. Kevorkian and Armin Mewes were doing.

I believe one of our founding father said that mixing religion and politics would be the death of America. As we are seeing now. It all started with Reagan. I hate that man.

Well, my constitution does mention God in the very first sentence, but it is the german one :-)

US laws do draw legitimacy from things like the ten commandments though, else there would be no good reason for laws against things like killing on request as Dr. Kevorkian and Armin Mewes were doing.
So, without the Bible we'd all be murderers?
And assisted suicide for people with irreversible conditions cannot be talked about the same way as murder can.

You know, after reading some of the quotes from the founders, I rather like them. As was previously mentioned, they're not necessarily anti-religion, but they didn't want it getting out of hand, and dictating what people should do...
So much different than now... I may have liked America back in those days. Pity I never studied American history because I figured it'd just be a lot more of the same as modern history.
Well, that's why we would call the Founding Fathers "classic liberals" today, and not "conservatives" in the moden sense of the word.

And anyone claiming that American law is somehow conceived through biblical knowledge has a myopic view of history, to say the last.
If that's true, than America owes it's heritage of law to Hammurabi.

To play the devil's advocate:
The Declaration of Independence's phrase "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator (singular) with certain unalienable rights" is a biblical concept. Had the American founding fathers wanted to do so, they could have endorsed secularism in the D of I, but instead the chose to use language indicative of a biblical worldview.

David Barton's book "Original Intent" has the following to say: (I am sorry if this is too long)
http://wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29

Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, 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, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them “a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ.” At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

As President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

To play the devil's advocate:

Errr... no.

"The Declaration of Independence


Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.


More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.

Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation."

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

So, without the Bible we'd all be murderers?
And assisted suicide for people with irreversible conditions cannot be talked about the same way as murder can.no, i am saying without the bible (or the christian-judean-moral-system) you could not justify a law against killing on demand, since it dies not violate the broad philosophic principle of "treat others as you want to be treated" and at least in the Mewes case we are not looking at irreversible conditions in any way.

So apparently we have contradicting quotes from the mouths of the forefathers themselves?

Anyway, read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Good book.

To play the devil's advocate:
.
As for Jefferson, why did he cut out all reference to the Supernatural from his bible if he were not a diest?

no, i am saying without the bible (or the christian-judean-moral-system) you could not justify a law against killing on demand, since it dies not violate the broad philosophic principle of "treat others as you want to be treated" and at least in the Mewes case we are not looking at irreversible conditions in any way.
But the Golden Rule is a necessity for survival. We must cooperate with each other if we are going to prosper. The idea behind the Golden Rule is far older than anything written.

So apparently we have contradicting quotes from the mouths of the forefathers themselves?

Anyway, read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Good book.

They were flip-floppers...

Errr... no.

"The Declaration of Independence

snip

Or, more simply: The Dec. of Ind. =/= the law of the land. The Constitution (which mentions no supreme being,) is. Period.

They were flip-floppers...
Okay, that was really funny! :D

Or, more simply: The Dec. of Ind. =/= the law of the land. The Constitution (which mentions no supreme being,) is. Period.
Well... sure... I mean if you don't want to provide sources or anything, be all rational about it then.

So apparently we have contradicting quotes from the mouths of the forefathers themselves?

Anyway, read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Good book.

The Age of Reason is available many places online, including right here (http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0598). It's powerful stuff, and everyone should give it a read.

In all fairness, of course, Paine had nothing to do with writing this country's founding documents as far as I can recall, though his ideas were certainly an influence on some of those who did.

The same, of course, can be said of Alexander Hamilton, who wasn't exactly a friend of democracy (he thought the US should start its own monarchy, for instance, and believed that Americans are too stupid to be allowed to elect a President, which is why we now have the electoral college).

While Washington did state at one point that he thought it a good thing that people learned about Christianity, he never said anything to indicate that it should be part of government. He thought it taught some lessons that would stop people from acting like animals, particularly in sparesly-populated areas.

Jefferson was a pretty outspoken Deist, as were Adams, Madison and Monroe. Franklin was into his own thing; he wasn't big on deity generally. Of course, he also believed (and stated during the Constitutional convention) that Jews were "Asiatic vampires" who could never assimilate into American society and thus shouldn't be given the same rights as everyone else. Take that as you will.

The founding fathers were radical thinkers in many ways. Revolutions are rarely initiated and perpetuated by those who favor the status quo, after all. Clearly, they were the left wing of their time, and farly extreme left wing at that. The very statement that men were created equal, in fact, was a radical espousal of enlightenment philosophy that most of the world disagreed vociferously with.

I've always liked Jefferson a great deal myself. Not that he was perfect by any stretch, but he was clearly one of the most brilliant men of his day. It's too bad that people of his intellect so rarely get into politics anymore.

As for Jefferson, why did he cut out all reference to the Supernatural from his bible if he were not a diest?


According to David Barton:


The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians.

And we do indeed seem to have different books containing conflicting statements from the founding fathers regarding their intentions. Which is probably why the USA continues to have debates over what the founding fathers said and what they meant. No other Western democracy has these kinds of debates.

No other Western democracy has these kinds of debates.
That's why it so important for the Christian Far-Right not to promote changing these types of debates.

According to David Barton:

And I offer Jefferson's own words:
We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages. [9]
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_012.htm

How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

According to David Barton:

And finally:

Also, from http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2001-July/002913.html: “And as to Jefferson's pushing of the treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe, which is usually used to indicate Jefferson's support of sending religion to Native Americans, I think we need to consider the paths of statecraft of the day.
The Kaskaskias were considered a sovereign nation -- not unlike the Barbary States -- and consequently this treaty was considered a treaty with a foreign entity. It could be binding on domestic policy only so far as it actually pledged to bind domestic policy -- and it makes no representations on religious freedom under the First Amendment.
“Also, it is quite clear from the context of the treaty and its supporting documents that the Kaskaskias were already Christian, having been converted by Catholic missionaries about a century earlier. They did not ask to be converted, nor was that the offer Jefferson's government made. Instead, they asked for a church structure and money to pay a priest. This is what is offered under the treaty.
“As a treaty, this represents a bargained position. In return for the U.S. giving the Kaskaskia tribe a building and money to support their religion, the U.S. got the rights to most of Illinois. We may not consider that a fair bargain today, but it was the bargain struck in a quid pro quo arrangement between two sovereign nations. “

http://www.reluctantatheist.com/wallbuilders270705.htm
I recommend you read the whole thing.

And I offer Jefferson's own words:
...

Why do you keep quoting Jefferson? He wrote the DoI, not the Constitution, hell, he wasn't even there when they wrote the Constitution.

However, he was one of the nine non-Christian founding fathers, I understand why you want to quote him.

How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'
I usually rely on facts to think things like that.

I usually rely on facts to think things like that.

Facts like which church was the state Church in each of the state signees of the constitution? You mean those kinds of facts?

How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

Then why isn't Christ mentioned in the Constitution?

The concept of "seperation of Church and State" is much older than modern day liberal interpretation and is Supreme Court precedent...though of course you know more about Constitutional law than generations of Supreme Court Justices...:rolleyes:

Facts like which church was the state Church in each of the state signees of the constitution? You mean those kinds of facts?
There's only one kind of fact.

Why do you keep quoting Jefferson?
http://www.teacher-tshirts.com/images/1009_reading_is_fundamental.jpg

http://www.teacher-tshirts.com/images/1009_reading_is_fundamental.jpg


So start reading, ninny.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

So start reading, ninny.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

Funny, none of that looks like the US Constitution either...

Funny, none of that looks like the US Constitution either...

Funny, none of your posts looks like useful information either :rolleyes:

Look at the years, these are the conflicts they had, These state governments, the ones that incorporated the constitution itself and agreed to follow it and thus leaving it for us, this is what they thought and how they debated and how they acted on it. What part of this is hard to understand?

The state governments 'agreed' to the constitution, no one forced it on them.

Neither Jefferson nor Madison 'wrote' the Constitution, it was written with a whole hell of a lot of bickering and compromising just to get it approved and enacted.

So start reading, ninny.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
From your site:
Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state. Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader. Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659 Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."

This is just one major argument for a seperation between Church and State.

"By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years' imprisonment without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man."

"Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Jefferson

Funny, none of your posts looks like useful information either :rolleyes:

Look at the years, these are the conflicts they had, These state governments, the ones that incorporated the constitution itself and agreed to follow it and thus leaving it for us, this is what they thought and how they debated and how they acted on it. What part of this is hard to understand?

The state governments 'agreed' to the constitution, no one forced it on them.

Neither Jefferson nor Madison 'wrote' the Constitution, it was written with a whole hell of a lot of bickering and compromising just to get it approved and enacted.
And it seperated religion from government for the good of us all.

*snip* - Jefferson

So what's your point?

I don't think the founding fathers intended anyone to be 'forced' to be Christians either, is anyone here arguing for that? Ummm, no.

And it seperated religion from government for the good of us all.

That's absolutely correct. But neither did they hinder the free practice of that religion by the government either - perhaps someone should talk about both sides of that amendment eh?

That's absolutely correct. But neither did they hinder the free practice of that religion by the government either - perhaps someone should talk about both sides of that amendment eh?
Huh? I don't care what you believe in. I'm saying that there is a seperation of church and state. You seem to be agreeing with me but arguing against something I haven't said.

Huh? I don't care what you believe in. I'm saying that there is a seperation of church and state. You seem to be agreeing with me but arguing against something I haven't said.

They never said, for example, prayer in school or teaching from the bible in school was wrong... Just an example. I'm not pretending that it should be brought back, only pointing out that it wasn't originally considered 'unconstitutional' when it was written.

In the same way, Church services was held in the very halls of Congress on every Sunday for more years than I know the answer to. And even your beloved Jefferson attended Church services in the halls of Congress when he was President himself, but he never ended it. Although he did not declare Thanksgiving days during his years in office, the modern concept of what the 'separation of church and state' mean is different today than exactly what they thought. Even the non-Christians among them.

God, huh?

You know what's really ridiculous?

The way you guys think what some guys a hundred-odd years ago thought should somehow drive your national policy. Of course, the idea that some guy two thousand years ago should drive your national policy is no less ridiculous, but at least that one is questioned.

Face it. The opinion of the Constitution writers means jack shit in a modern context. If you can't think for yourself and write up a compromise solution, what's the point in being a nation? You're just buying into a brand name, if that's how you think.

Disclaimer: I'm a little tipsy. Apologies if I'm offending anyone. Blame it on Pinot Grigiot. If that's even how it's spelt. <_<;

According to David Barton:




And we do indeed seem to have different books containing conflicting statements from the founding fathers regarding their intentions. Which is probably why the USA continues to have debates over what the founding fathers said and what they meant. No other Western democracy has these kinds of debates.

Sorry, but Mr. Barton is a far-right religious wingnut that fervent opposes separation of chuch and state. He is a joke in academic circles. He is not a reliable source.

How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

Utter Bullshit.

1. The separation of Church and State was clearly agreed upon by the Founders in the First Amendment.

2. You seem to have forgotten a little thing known as the 14th Amendment.

They never said, for example, prayer in school or teaching from the bible in school was wrong... Just an example. I'm not pretending that it should be brought back, only pointing out that it wasn't originally considered 'unconstitutional' when it was written.
In the same way, Church services was held in the very halls of Congress on every Sunday for more years than I know the answer to. And even your beloved Jefferson attended Church services in the halls of Congress when he was President himself, but he never ended it. Although he did not declare Thanksgiving days during his years in office, the modern concept of what the 'separation of church and state' mean is different today than exactly what they thought. Even the non-Christians among them.

Nor was it considered constitutional at the time.

Your psuedo-history does not change the language of the Constitution.

The best way to put it, I believe, is that while the founders were men who had complex beliefs, the language that they wrote is simple enough.

We can argue till we're all blue in the face about if they were Christian, or what the foundations of our laws are (I see a lot of mention of English common law, but little reference to Greek and Roman infulances; and, except for late Roman times, they were NOT Christian), but the fact of the language of the Constitution remains. Indeed, it is obvious that document was meant to lead us, a devloping nation, not lock us into the ideas of 1787. That's why the language is kept simple enough to apply to a broad range of issues that the new nation might confront, but not particular ones.

God, Jesus, Creator, the Deity, none appear within the orginal written text, nor do they appear in the later amendments (we speak of the Bill of Rights as being part of the orginal document, but they did come later). It seems plain then that, no matter what their personal beliefs were, the framers built and left a wall to seperate the Church from the State.

No matter how many times people bang their heads on it, they cannot remove that language... or add what isn't there.

Utter Bullshit.

1. The separation of Church and State was clearly agreed upon by the Founders in the First Amendment.

Proof of your bullshit is what, that you say so, in all your partiality?

2. You seem to have forgotten a little thing known as the 14th Amendment.

You seem to have forgotten the little thing that ALL of the founding fathers were long since DEAD before the 14th Amendment was written. So how could they have 'intended' that the 1st amendment would apply to the States? They did not, and you lie to pretend that they did.

I don't even have to defend or attack the 14th amendments taking the rights to the individuals instead of the States, but for the anti-recognition of religion people who are against anything spiritual being sponsored with government money etc., for these people to be running around quoting Jefferson and pretending that the founding fathers were on their side is poppycock bullshit, and you defend their misuse of history is telling, Mr. Lawyer man arguing with anything to win, doesn’t need to be ‘right’ or truthful, so long as it draws in the suckers to your side you'll use it. :gundge: :rolleyes:

Nor was it considered constitutional at the time.

Your psuedo-history does not change the language of the Constitution.


And your pretending that history isn't what it is won't change it either. History is on it's own side, and I'm quoting it far more truthfully than your side is if you want to quote 14th amendment crap while talking about founding fathers intentions... :eek: :p

Proof of your bullshit is what, that you say so, in all your partiality?



You seem to have forgotten the little thing that ALL of the founding fathers were long since DEAD before the 14th Amendment was written. So how could they have 'intended' that the 1st amendment would apply to the States? They did not, and you lie to pretend that they did.

I don't even have to defend or attack the 14th amendments taking the rights to the individuals instead of the States, but for the anti-recognition of religion people who are against anything spiritual being sponsored with government money etc., for these people to be running around quoting Jefferson and pretending that the founding fathers were on their side is poppycock bullshit, and you defend their misuse of history is telling, Mr. Lawyer man arguing with anything to win, doesn’t need to be ‘right’ or truthful, so long as it draws in the suckers to your side you'll use it. :gundge: :rolleyes:




And your pretending that history isn't what it is won't change it either. History is on it's own side, and I'm quoting it far more truthfully than your side is if you want to quote 14th amendment crap while talking about founding fathers intentions... :eek: :p

I'll ignore your flaming and flamebait.

I never argued the 14th Amendment showed the intentions of the Founders. To the contrary, the 14th Amendment amended the Constitution and changed the entire landscape -- making the intent of the Founders on such issues as state churches irrelevant.

Precedent against using government money to support a religion or religion in general runs back to the Founding itself. You piss in the wind of history.

I'll ignore your flaming and flamebait.

Too late. (BTW: flamebait my butt :rolleyes: you just don't like being wrong and called on it)

I never argued the 14th Amendment showed the intentions of the Founders.

Yes you did, look at the discussion in this thread, look are your post in it. Walla, you're wrong, you did say it, then you were called on it, then you tried to change the topic...


To the contrary, the 14th Amendment amended the Constitution and changed the entire landscape -- making the intent of the Founders on such issues as state churches irrelevant.

Precedent against using government money to support a religion or religion in general runs back to the Founding itself. You piss in the wind of history.

This is just you trying to pretend like you didn't slam face first into the dirt with your foot squarely in your mouth.

Of course, now that you've written it, you could pass it around to the other people in this thread to explain to them why they are allowed to think about separation of church and state in it's modern understanding without trying to pretend that the founding fathers agree with them. Because the original intent is now irrelevant, and the SCOTUS will decide how far separation needs to be, it's quite vague you know, more than one modern day interpretation is valid...

God, huh?

You know what's really ridiculous?

The way you guys think what some guys a hundred-odd years ago thought should somehow drive your national policy. Of course, the idea that some guy two thousand years ago should drive your national policy is no less ridiculous, but at least that one is questioned.

Face it. The opinion of the Constitution writers means jack shit in a modern context. If you can't think for yourself and write up a compromise solution, what's the point in being a nation? You're just buying into a brand name, if that's how you think.

Disclaimer: I'm a little tipsy. Apologies if I'm offending anyone. Blame it on Pinot Grigiot. If that's even how it's spelt. <_<;
This is in answer to people who say our country was founded on the Christian faith. It's an answer to a pre-existing argument.

Too late. (BTW: flamebait my butt :rolleyes: you just don't like being wrong and called on it)



Yes you did, look at the discussion in this thread, look are your post in it. Walla, you're wrong, you did say it, then you were called on it, then you tried to change the topic...



This is just you trying to pretend like you didn't slam face first into the dirt with your foot squarely in your mouth.

Of course, now that you've written it, you could pass it around to the other people in this thread to explain to them why they are allowed to think about separation of church and state in it's modern understanding without trying to pretend that the founding fathers agree with them. Because the original intent is now irrelevant, and the SCOTUS will decide how far separation needs to be, it's quite vague you know, more than one modern day interpretation is valid...
Seperation needs to be absolute. That's exactly how far it needs to be.

Modern understanding of what? How can you draw historic and modern comparisons between something that is not included in the document at all? Is there a historic understanding of the complete absence of the word God that we moderns just can't comprehend?

Bump... because I have nothing else to do with my time...

Too late. (BTW: flamebait my butt :rolleyes: you just don't like being wrong and called on it)


Yes you did, look at the discussion in this thread, look are your post in it. Walla, you're wrong, you did say it, then you were called on it, then you tried to change the topic...

Here is the original thread of argument:

Quote:
[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe][QUOTE=Greenlander]
How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'


Utter Bullshit.

1. The separation of Church and State was clearly agreed upon by the Founders in the First Amendment.

2. You seem to have forgotten a little thing known as the 14th Amendmen

As is clearly illustrated you were making a bizarre argument about what the Fournders really wanted was each state to have its own state religion. I humoured this historical fantasy, but noted that:

As I pointed out, the Founders nonetheless agreed on the language of the 1st Amendment -- which requires separation of church and state.

And your federalism argument, falls apart because the 14th Amendment changes the Constitutional landscape.

I never argued the 14th Amendment showed the intent of the original Founders. That would be silly. Almost as your attempt to show that pre-14th Amendment notions of federalism should control our current interpreations of the 1st Amendment.


This is just you trying to pretend like you didn't slam face first into the dirt with your foot squarely in your mouth.

I did not say what you accuse me of, so it is you sucking up dust.

Of course, now that you've written it, you could pass it around to the other people in this thread to explain to them why they are allowed to think about separation of church and state in it's modern understanding without trying to pretend that the founding fathers agree with them. Because the original intent is now irrelevant, and the SCOTUS will decide how far separation needs to be, it's quite vague you know, more than one modern day interpretation is valid...

For someone that was making bold predictions about the 10 Commandment cases -- only to lose -- you are being very smug and smarmy.

I've never said original intent is irrelevant. Nor is the First Amendment particularly vague.

What I have said is their is clear precedent running from the Founding through the last 216 years, supporting a strict separation of Church and State. Most recently in the 10 Commandment cases.

Your little misleading anecdotes and misquotes from history are pissing in the wind of over 200 years of caselaw.

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.
Constitutional law grew out of Common Law, which originated in pre-Christian, Pagan, England.

You seem to have forgotten the little thing that ALL of the founding fathers were long since DEAD before the 14th Amendment was written. So how could they have 'intended' that the 1st amendment would apply to the States? They did not, and you lie to pretend that they did.
What does it matter whether the founding fathers intended it or not? They we're perfect, didn't claim to be, and didn't claim the right to dictate how Americans should govern themselves for all time. That's why they provided for an amendment process.

However, it would be rather perverse if the founding fathers aimed to protect people's basic rights at a federal level while allowing them to be subverted by the states within the union. And the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect people's rights and liberties, including those of Christians, by keeping government out of their religious affairs.

I really do not understand why people would want to live under a religous fundamentalist regime, or why some people want to make America into one.

I really do not understand why people would want to live under a religous fundamentalist regime, or why some people want to make America into one.

They don't seem to realize that the seperation is as much to keep government from corrupting religion as it is to keep religion from corrupting government.

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.
It's a bit removed though to be considered the direct word of God then. I suggest that stuff like compulsory teaching of creationism in schools is going a bit far.

They don't seem to realize that the seperation is as much to keep government from corrupting religion as it is to keep religion from corrupting government.
More to protect religion from government than the other way round, I think.

Colonists such as the Pilgrim fathers came to the USA in order to get away from a government which was dictating religion, and the founding fathers wanted to prevent such intrusion.

Once religion gets into government, you have a potential minefield. Fundamentalists might be happy to have their version of Christianity intrude into government, but how would they feel if one day the President and Congress started using the "Christian nation" argument to start pushing what they regarded as the only true Christianity - Catholicism - on to them? Catholic divorce laws, the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments in courthouses (it's not quite the same as the Protestant one), "one nation under God, Jesus, the Saints, and the immaculately-conceived Virgin Mary" etc etc. With the growing Catholic Latin population of the USA, it's not inconceivable.

The only safe way to protect everybody's religious freedom is to keep government out of it, and that means keeping religion out of government, at all levels.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson

Here's your ass back...

Facts like which church was the state Church in each of the state signees of the constitution? You mean those kinds of facts?

Not all states had "State Churches" when the Constitution was being designed. Quite a few either NEVER had one, or dismantled them years before during the revolution.... Only a minority of states, in fact, even had a state sponsored religion by the time the Constitution was coming around.

However, if one takes a good idea from one source, it does not automatically mean one agrees with everything that source says. Just that you like that particular part.
Which is exactly what 99.99% of Christians do with the Bible. They use the parts that validate their personal morality, and ignore or down-play the parts that conflict with that morality. I don't know why any of them are asking for the Biblical concept of wrongdoing to become enshrined in American law, because if it did then they would be forbidden to pray in public (Matthew 6: 5-6), display images of Jesus (Exodus 20:4), or speak out against other people's sins (Eph 5:11,12).

Which is exactly what 99.99% of Christians do with the Bible. They use the parts that validate their personal morality, and ignore or down-play the parts that conflict with that morality. I don't know why any of them are asking for the Biblical concept of wrongdoing to become enshrined in American law, because if it did then they would be forbidden to pray in public (Matthew 6: 5-6), display images of Jesus (Exodus 20:4), or speak out against other people's sins (Eph 5:11,12).
I'm really amazed by those three examples from the bible itself. What the hell?

Just a taste of what is being dealt with here,

"So here's a summary for the White House press corps:

Keeping people of faith off the court = bad.

Looking for nominees of faith = good."
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0038249.cfm

How the heck can you guys argue about what religion or non-religion the founding fathers wanted from the federal government? They couldn't mandate one because they couldn’t agree on which one because every State had it's own state version of Christianity and they were all jealous of the others should theirs be placed as secondary.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

Strange how quotes from them seem to disagree with you. They believed in religious freedom. You simply have to ignore their own writings and speeches to think otherwise. Many of them were religious men and many of them felt that men were better if they believed in God, but they still didn't believe people should be prevented from worshipping freely and that all religious beliefs, including atheism, should be protected. For evidence of this simply look at the quotes sprinkled throughout the thread that show the fouding fathers were religious men who intended for their to be a seperation of Church and State.

Just a taste of what is being dealt with here,

"So here's a summary for the White House press corps:

Keeping people of faith off the court = bad.

Looking for nominees of faith = good."
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0038249.cfm

This arguement really isn't about that desperate but for the record with other recordings like "Staying Christian in a Pagan Culture, Pt 1" its hardly a non biased site.

This arguement really isn't about that desperate but for the record with other recordings like "Staying Christian in a Pagan Culture, Pt 1" its hardly a non biased site.
I know...
*flagellates self*

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson

Here's your ass back...


Two problems with your lack of reading comprehension... One, Jefferson wasn't there. And two, the Christians in the assembly DID want to include and cover under the protection, under the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth. So how does this now translate into, Government cannot even 'acknowledge' that religion exists and other modern day ideas of what separation of church and state mean...

As to your next post, about the states not having state supported religions after the Constitution, you are wrong. About not all of them having one, and them being taken away, you are right. So what's your point? My point is still valid evidence that the States that implemented and approved the constitution of the United States DID NOT think that they had to forgo their public and government displayed symbols of religious observance (prayer in Congress and before courts and in public assemblies, for example).


*Went to look in your hands to accept my ass back and found that you didn't have my ass at all, you were simply looking for your own ~ here's a map, perhaps Jacobia can help you, I have to ignore his post or else he'll report me in the Moderation forum (again :rolleyes: )*

This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth. So how does this now translate into, Government cannot even 'acknowledge' that religion exists and other modern day ideas of what separation of church and state mean...

I'll take the last line of your post to mean that you can't address my post on merits so you have to resort to flaming/flamebaiting or simply ignoring it. Accepted. I'm happy to see you've chosen the latter.

The Preamble he was referring to was the Virginia act for Religious Freedom, not the Virginia Constitution or any Constitution. Oddly since you didn't know what it was from, how do you assert he wasn't there. Also, your claimed they intended to create a Christian nation but many of them weren't Christian, and wanted to protect non-Christians as evidenced in the quote. I love how you change your point to try and make out like you were right. He proved you wrong, much like dozens of quotes did.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Here's a tidbit that'll help you find out that they were not attempting to project Christianity through the government and many times excluded it from documents with purpose.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?

Mother Jones owns all! I think I subscribed to it, not sure if I sent in the thing or not. I used to think it was some church propaganda crap(MOTHER Theresa--MOTHER Jones) but when I saw something about Iraq War on the cover I decided to have a look-see and they have great articles. Conservatives won't like it though...

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.

British law is derived from Roman law, not the Bible. Also without a written constitution, precedent (what happened in similar cases before) is more important. The separation is proven by the existence in the UK of Ecclesiastical courts even today which try cases brought against clerics, provided they are not facing criminal or civil charges.

> Thou wert fair in the fearless old fashion,
And thy limbs are as melodies yet,
And move to the music of passion
With lithe and lascivious regret.
What ailed us, O gods, to desert you
For creeds that refuse and restrain?
Come down and redeem us from virtue,
Our Lady of Pain. <

From Dolores by Algernon Charles Swinburne

Just for the record, this is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Exactly where does it thank God or Divine Providence or whatnot?

Edit: Oh, and government can and does acknowledge that religion exists, I'm not sure where that idea came from, Green. For example, churches have tax-exempt status. SCOTUS developed the so-called "Sham Religions Test" so they could determine what religions are legitimate and therefore deserving of federal protection.

*snipped asinine bullshit*

The Preamble he was referring to was the Virginia act for Religious Freedom, not the Virginia Constitution or any Constitution. Oddly since you didn't know what it was from, how do you assert he wasn't there.

Oddly since you didn't know that this THREAD is about the constitution and God, that I managed to apply what he said to the TOPIC. And I said he wasn't there, because he wasn't there. So how does what Jefferson have to say about a different issue apply to the God in the Constitution discussion...

Please try to keep up...

Also, your claimed they intended to create a Christian nation

I did not. I said no such thing. You lie.

...but many of them weren't Christian, and wanted to protect non-Christians as evidenced in the quote.

I know of none of them, Christian or otherwise, that did not agree to protect the rights of freedom to practice (for everyone) of all religions. They did not need to be 'non-christians' to desire to share the rights of freedom to worship as each person finds fit... Your assumption that only non-Christians could possible concieve of such a freedom is beyond rationale comprehension.


...

You brought up the treaty of Tripoli and the barbary pirates? LMMFAO :p Holy shit, get a life.

It promises that the US is NOT just another European off-shoot that will declaire a 'crusade' type war of religious subjugation on them simply because they are not Christian.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It didn’t work, we went to war with them anyway… But not because they were Muslims, as promised by that treaty.

They felt that it was within their rights as Muslims to break a treaty made with a 'non-Muslim' nation, the ambassador that wrote that was trying to find a way to get them to consider that treaty binding (and Congress approved said same treaty...but it was already too late)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

I'm so confused at this point. Greenlander, is this not incredibly damaging to your case?

EDIT: And I really am just confused. It occured to me after I posted this that it could sound condescending or something, which is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand what both sides of this issue are saying to figure out which side I may wish to come down on.

Just for the record, this is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution:



Exactly where does it thank God or Divine Providence or whatnot?

Edit: Oh, and government can and does acknowledge that religion exists, I'm not sure where that idea came from, Green. For example, churches have tax-exempt status. SCOTUS developed the so-called "Sham Religions Test" so they could determine what religions are legitimate and therefore deserving of federal protection.

Who's got that link to all the state constitution preambles?

Try looking them up.

I'm so confused at this point. Greenlander, is this not incredibly damaging to your case?

EDIT: And I really am just confused. It occured to me after I posted this that it could sound condescending or something, which is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand what both sides of this issue are saying to figure out which side I may wish to come down on.


Try not to break the paragraph, or at least, read the entire sentence, it's not damaging in the least, it says exactly what it wants. We will not declare war on you simply because you are muslims...

"... as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Try not to break the paragraph, or at least, read the entire the sentence :rolleyes:

"... as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

During that age, and even still today, some people, especially in the middle-east, believe that a different religion of the people in a country next to you is sufficient reason to declare war. The young US was promising that that they did not hold such a belief...

Oddly since you didn't know that this THREAD is about the constitution and God, that I managed to apply what he said to the TOPIC. And I said he wasn't there, because he wasn't there. So how does what Jefferson have to say about a different issue apply to the God in the Constitution discussion...

Please try to keep up...

Uh-huh. So the preamble you were talking about that mentions the Creator. That would be the US Constitution's Preamble that says no such thing. I guess tying it back to the thread by making stuff up is a great way to do things. Um, NOT.

Also, your claimed they intended to create a Christian nation
I did not. I said no such thing. You lie.

Hmmm... let's see what I'm 'lying' about.

To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Strange. They appear that they made an absolute effort to exclude Christ from the Constittution and from many more local laws (as evidenced by the quote). It also appears that you did in fact claim that not only did they expect to create a Christian nation, that they could not even 'conceive' of a non-Christian nation. Amusing that you would suggest it's a lie when I can just quote you. Caught.

I know of none of them, Christian or otherwise, that did not agree to protect the rights of freedom to practice (for everyone) of all religions. They did not need to be 'non-christians' to desire to share the rights of freedom to worship as each person finds fit... Your assumption that only non-Christians could possible concieve of such a freedom is beyond rationale comprehension.

I made no such assumption. I simply made the point that many of them were in fact non-Christians, so to suggest they couldn't conceive of a non-Christian nation is 'asinine'. They did protect the freedom to practice and no one is arguing they didn't. Quit trying to act like I said something I didn't.

You brought up the treaty of Tripoli and the barbary pirates? LMMFAO :p Holy shit, get a life.

I brought up the Treaty of Tripoli? I posted a site that quotes many of the founding fathers who you claimed couldn't conceive of a Non-Christian nation and yet those quotes show otherwise. Again, you're trying to change the subject. I assume you could look at the quotes from the founding fathers including one you quoted that showed that this nation was not founded on Christianity. Your tactics of pretending my link is about the Treaty of Tripoli rather than about the intents of the founding fathers are amusing... and transparent.

It promises that the US is NOT just another European off-shoot that will declaire a 'crusade' type war of religious subjugation on them simply because they are not Christian.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It didn’t work, we went to war with them anyway… But not because they were Muslims, as promised by that treaty.

What's your point? The quotes show that they never intended for this to be a Christian nation and rather that they intended this to be a nation that contained Christians and non-Christians that all were free to excercise their religious beliefs. Odd that you would post a quote that clearly refutes your point that they couldn't conceive of a non-Christian nation.

During that age, and even still today, some people, especially in the middle-east, believe that a different religion of the people in a country next to you is sufficient reason to declare war. The young US was promising that that they did not hold such a belief...

Ok, I get that. I guess what I'm confused about is that it doesn't seem to come down one way or the other on the issue of God in the Constitution. Am I just being obtuse? :(

Who's got that link to all the state constitution preambles?

Try looking them up.

You were talking about the US Constitution. In fact you mentioned them seperately. I'll just go ahead and quote you.

This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth. So how does this now translate into, Government cannot even 'acknowledge' that religion exists and other modern day ideas of what separation of church and state mean...

... to include the vast majority of State Constitutions TOO. Whoops. I love that I just quote you when you pretend you didn't say something you did.

Ok, I get that. I guess what I'm confused about is that it doesn't seem to come down one way or the other on the issue of God in the Constitution. Am I just being obtuse? :(

Nah, you're being fine. Jacobia is having some issues though... The constitution's intent, with the first amendment, is being discussed.

Freedom of religion, freedom to worship, freedom to be different and not be coerced into following a state mandated religion, or anything like it, are all there. To worship or not, as one sees fit, was to be protected. To have the power to hold a religious service (even in a public place, like the halls of congress), and to pray for devine guidance as they wrote the constitution itself and would start each day of congress since then until now, was fine with them, so long as no one was 'forced' to do it or punished for not doing it.

The modern idea that it means the government can't 'proclaim any day of prayer,' (for example) for fear of offending someone of a different religion, was not what they were talking about, as evidenced by their actions during the years after writing the constitution and approving it.

You were talking about the US Constitution. In fact you mentioned them seperately. I'll just go ahead and quote you.

... to include the vast majority of State Constitutions TOO. Whoops. I love that I just quote you when you pretend you didn't say something you did.


READ the QUOTE! Holy crap man. :rolleyes:

This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth.

WTF is with you? I clearly point out that I'm looping in the State Constitutions, the constitutions that the representatives that approved the federal constitution are writing the federal version for, and that THEY clearly include divine recognition in them.

WTF is with you? I clearly point out that I'm looping in the State Constitutions, the constitutions that the representatives that approved the federal constitution are writing the federal version for, and that THEY clearly include divine recognition in them.
No your not really clearly doing so. You've cut the s and state constitution off with () which makes it unclear and people will think your pointing to the US constitution in that instance and including the state constitutions. Why not just say its in the state constitutions without the ()?

Nah, you're being fine. Jacobia is having some issues though... The constitution's intent, with the first amendment, is being discussed.

Freedom of religion, freedom to worship, freedom to be different and not be coerced into following a state mandated religion, or anything like it, are all there. To worship or not, as one sees fit, was to be protected. To have the power to hold a religious service (even in a public place, like the halls of congress), and to pray for devine guidance as they wrote the constitution itself and would start each day of congress since then until now, was fine with them, so long as no one was 'forced' to do it or punished for not doing it.

The modern idea that it means the government can't 'proclaim any day of prayer,' (for example) for fear of offending someone of a different religion, was not what they were talking about, as evidenced by their actions during the years after writing the constitution and approving it.

Here's what's getting me, though. I kind of think that the Founders would approve of things the way they are now, because I doubt they could have forseen some of the circumstances of the modern day. For instance, school prayer would never be an issue to them because they probably didn't forsee the sort of mandatory education system we have today (correct me if I'm wrong). And it seems to me that that sort of thing, where the public's interests are concerned and not purely the government's interests, is what the focus of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject is about. For instance, nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that the Justices attend a mass/service/whatever before the beginning of the judicial term, but their rulings come down consistently seperationist (and always have, though to differing degrees).

As to praying for guidance or whatnot while writing the Constitution, it seems to me that that still isn't a problem, so long as it isn't institutionalized. I may simply be ignorant on the subject, but I don't think it has ever been found that a couple of kids saying a prayer before sitting down to lunch at school was a problem, so long as it was a private affair. I even seem to remember offical religious organizations being allowed so long as equal opportunity is given to all, again refering to schools but in truth existing at different levels of society as well. I suppose it's possible that I've simply missed or forgotten the case law, but I've spent the better part of the last two years studying the Constitution.

READ the QUOTE! Holy crap man. :rolleyes:



WTF is with you? I clearly point out that I'm looping in the State Constitutions, the constitutions that the representatives that approved the federal constitution are writing the federal version for, and that THEY clearly include divine recognition in them.

Yes, you are looping in the state constitutions but your main point was about the US Constitution.

"This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth."

It's so obvious that you included the states' constitutions into your point about the federal constitution that DOES NOT include anything about God.

Ok, I get that. I guess what I'm confused about is that it doesn't seem to come down one way or the other on the issue of God in the Constitution. Am I just being obtuse? :(

No, you're not being obtuse, he is. He looked at a site focused on the quotes of the founding fathers and how they felt about the Seperation of Church and State, which IS the point of the thread, and he pretended it was about the Treaty of Tripoli rather than simply briefly mentioning it. He's attempting to obfuscate the point, mainly because he made claims that are clearly shown to not be true if one were to read those quotes.

No, you're not being obtuse, he is. He looked at a site focused on the quotes of the founding fathers and how they felt about the Seperation of Church and State, which IS the point of the thread, and he pretended it was about the Treaty of Tripoli rather than simply briefly mentioning it. He's attempting to obfuscate the point, mainly because he made claims that are clearly shown to not be true if one were to read those quotes.

Fine :rolleyes:

You are a bald faced liar again:

Title of your link:
Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker


End of your link:
Conclusion

The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.

Read your own damn link Jacobia, you have no idea what you are talking about or you do and you are lying, you posted a link to an opinion piece written by Jim Walker, Whoever the hell that is and you act like we are supposed to accept it like a SCOTUS ruling or something… WTF?


http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
----

Jacobia does this all the time, he never actually seems to understand what the hell the topic is, I usually recognize that right off and tell him so, but there's been some whinny bitching in the mod forum that is threatening to ban me for pointing out what Jacobia is, so, I'm outta here.

Jacobia will now commence arguing that he was right all along and 'chased' me off with his torch of truth or some other dumbassshit proclamation.

Fine :rolleyes:

You are a bald faced liar again:

Title of your link:
Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker


End of your link:
Conclusion

The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.

Read your own damn link Jacobia, you have no idea what you are talking about or you do and you are lying, you posted a link to an opinion piece written by Jim Walker, Whoever the hell that is and you act like we are supposed to accept it like a SCOTUS ruling or something… WTF?


http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
----

Jacobia does this all the time, he never actually seems to understand what the hell the topic is, I usually recognize that right off and tell him so, but there's been some whinny bitching in the mod forum that is threatening to ban me for pointing out what Jacobia is, so, I'm outta here.

Jacobia will now commence arguing that he was right all along and 'chased' me off with his torch of truth or some other dumbassshit proclamation.

What else does the link have on it? You're getting angry because you know exactly why I posted the link and what it was about. Does it contain MANY, MANY quotes NOT related to the Treaty of Tripoli? Yup. I mentioined the quotes that were in the thread and on that site several times. To pretend like that page only uses the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence is to skew the truth. I used that page because it contained some of the quotes from earlier in the thread including one that was about an act by the state of Virginia that someone else posted to show that this was not intended to be a Christian nation.

Ziandrew - Now if you'd like to see what he's talking about you are welcome to look at the this link. He was warned for flaming. Greenlander cannot seem to make a reasoned argument without calling people names or suggesting they don't know how to read. Perhaps if you look around this thread, you can see him doing so. Over and over. He never seems to learn. Then he does things like the above to bait me and others. It's really just weak debating tactics. He's bitter becuase he made the claim that the founders couldn't concieve of a non-Christian nation and quotes over and over have shown so. Also, he quoted the site and showed that they did, in fact, concieve of a non-Christian nation and in fact intended to create one. He's bitter because he made the claim that the Preamble to the Constitution mentions the Creator and then it was posted to show him otherwise. He likes to make the thread about other things so he changes the point to the Treaty of Tripoli or how I'm trying to get him banned (can't get banned if you don't break the rules).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456518

1. As has been pointed out several times, the personal opinions or actions of individual Founders are not controlling on the issue of the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, it was the Founder's intent that their intentions not control the outcomes of cases.

2. The language of the Constitution is clear -- which is why Greenlander never wishes to talk about it.

3. To the extent it matters, the writings and actions of many of our Founders -- particularly the author of the First Amendment, James Madison -- make clear that separation of Church and State was intended by the First Amendment.

4. The Founder's did not make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, so the issue of state religious activities during that time is irrelevant. The passage of the 14th Amendment changed things and made the BoR applicable to the states. Thus, the states then did not have to seperate church and state, but they must do so now.

5. The Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent in holding that the First Amdendment requires a separation of Church and State. In fact, the principle has been embraced for 200 years.

I think it's very interesting to note that it can be argued many of the leaders of the early U.S. were strongly accomodationist as far as seperation is concerned. That is, there were those who were willing to allow the government to do whatever it wanted with respect to religion so long as they didn't establish an official state religion. This is interesting, but irrelevant. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has been at best mildly accomodationist, if not generally strictly seperationist. If the government touches religion at all, it has to touch all religions equally. There certainly were some that wanted religion tangled in government. Thank God for the Supreme Court!

*snipped post, but a mostly useful post, seen above*

As to your earlier assertion that I lost the 10 commandment prediction I made in the Spring, I’d call the last couple of ten commandment cases a draw, or a push, depending on your game of choice. One went your way and one went mine, however, I also mentioned that I was afraid of that happening (them not finally defining it solidly, to last a few years anyway, but ah well).

As the separation clauses of the first amendment and you saying that it's not ‘vague’ and that I just don't like to read it plainly. I was just trying to be polite and assign to your side some potential merit, even if I can’t see it, to justify you holding it and 'assuming' you might have a point. However, your response to that shows what I get for trying… :eek: :p

Regardless, I'll prove ambiguity in the amendment anyway, via a couple of cases that show differing opinions about how the first amendment might be applied in the future (enough with the past).

* In Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the constiutionality of Nebraska's practice of beginning each day in its state legislature with a non-denominational prayer. In an opinion relying to an unusual degree on framer's intent, the Court upheld the practice, reasoning that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also voted to hire a congressional chaplain and begin its legislative days with a prayer, and therefore could not have intended in the Establishment Clause to have prohibited legislative prayers. Given what the majority saw as clear framer's intent, the Court refused to apply the Lemon test usually used in Establishment Clause cases.

* On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court decided the closely -watched appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision finding the addition of the words "under God" to Pledge of Allegiance to violate the Establishment Clause.

But a technicality stopped it from being fully heard in the SCOTUS, or at least I should say, not fully ruled upon because of a technicality…

On a vote of 5-3, the Court in Elk River Unified School District v Newdow ruled that the non-custodial parent who brought the suit against the school district lacked standing to do so. Even so, three justices, in concurring opinions, indicated that they would have concluded on the merits that the Pledge law did not violate the Establishment Clause. In what I am sure you hate the most, but in the one I favor, the opinion of Justice Thomas went so far as to say he would find that the Establishment Clause was not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore doesn't limit states at all!

We’ll see what happens with the next justice appointee in place. I’m leaving my money on the table though, are you?

As to your earlier assertion that I lost the 10 commandment prediction I made in the Spring, I’d call the last couple of ten commandment cases a draw, or a push, depending on your game of choice. One went your way and one went mine, however, I also mentioned that I was afraid of that happening (them not finally defining it solidly, to last a few years anyway, but ah well).

LOL.

You don't even bother to debate my points, but I'll respond to your nonsense anyway.

Funny you should call the cases a push since both had esssentially the same holding.

Here is from the deciding opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500#concurrence3) in the case you claim you won:

In School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), Justice Goldberg, joined by Justice Harlan, wrote, in respect to the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, that there is "no simple and clear measure which by precise application can readily and invariably demark the permissible from the impermissible." Id., at 306 (concurring opinion). One must refer instead to the basic purposes of those Clauses. They seek to "assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all." Id., at 305. They seek to avoid that divisiveness based upon religion that promotes social conflict, sapping the strength of government and religion alike. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 717-729 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting). They seek to maintain that "separation of church and state" that has long been critical to the "peaceful dominion that religion exercises in [this] country," where the "spirit of religion" and the "spirit of freedom" are productively "united," "reign together" but in separate spheres "on the same soil." A. de Tocqueville, [I]Democracy in America 282-283 (1835) (H. Mansfield & D. Winthrop transls. and eds. 2000). They seek to further the basic principles set forth today by Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., post, at 1.

The Court has made clear, as Justices Goldberg and Harlan noted, that the realization of these goals means that government must "neither engage in nor compel religious practices," that it must "effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion," and that it must "work deterrence of no religious belief." Schempp, supra, at 305 (concurring opinion); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 587 (1992); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947). The government must avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion. See generally County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 593-594 (1989)

....

Thus, Justice Breyer emphasized the meaning and importance of separation of Church and State. Justice Breyer then applies the Lemon test (although he says no one test is adequate to sum up all cases).

The deciding opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1693#opinion1) in the other case used the Lemon test.

As the separation clauses of the first amendment and you saying that it's not ‘vague’ and that I just don't like to read it plainly. I was just trying to be polite and assign to your side some potential merit, even if I can’t see it, to justify you holding it and 'assuming' you might have a point. However, your response to that shows what I get for trying… :eek: :p

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I've never said there is no ambiguity in the meaning or that it does require any interpretation. If so, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.

But you like to act like the Establishment Clause isn't even there. It clearly is. Government cannot do anything even respecting the establishment of religion. Government cannot endorse or support religion. That is clear.

Regardless, I'll prove ambiguity in the amendment anyway, via a couple of cases that show differing opinions about how the first amendment might be applied in the future (enough with the past).

* In Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the constiutionality of Nebraska's practice of beginning each day in its state legislature with a non-denominational prayer. In an opinion relying to an unusual degree on framer's intent, the Court upheld the practice, reasoning that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also voted to hire a congressional chaplain and begin its legislative days with a prayer, and therefore could not have intended in the Establishment Clause to have prohibited legislative prayers. Given what the majority saw as clear framer's intent, the Court refused to apply the Lemon test usually used in Establishment Clause cases.

* On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court decided the closely -watched appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision finding the addition of the words "under God" to Pledge of Allegiance to violate the Establishment Clause.

But a technicality stopped it from being fully heard in the SCOTUS, or at least I should say, not fully ruled upon because of a technicality…

On a vote of 5-3, the Court in Elk River Unified School District v Newdow ruled that the non-custodial parent who brought the suit against the school district lacked standing to do so. Even so, three justices, in concurring opinions, indicated that they would have concluded on the merits that the Pledge law did not violate the Establishment Clause. In what I am sure you hate the most, but in the one I favor, the opinion of Justice Thomas went so far as to say he would find that the Establishment Clause was not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore doesn't limit states at all!

We’ll see what happens with the next justice appointee in place. I’m leaving my money on the table though, are you?

LOL. That is your trend? a 1983 case and a concurrence from 2004.

So, in the entire history of the US Constitution, you find 2 "cases":

one from 1983 that was a 6-3 decision in which the Court did not apply the Lemon test, but made a special exception for a historically recognized practice

[Unfortunately for you the Court re-endorsed the Lemon test in both of the 10 Commandment cases.]

one where the Court didn't even approach the merits, but 3 justices indicated in concurrence what they "would have" voted. Two of those three (O'Connor and Rhenquist) are no longer on the Court!!! (oops!)

I won't cite all the cases since the Founding of the Republic, but there are scores upon scores of cases on the First Amendment. You can't find a single one that endorses your view of the First Amendment (not even Marsh).

Two problems with your lack of reading comprehension... One, Jefferson wasn't there. And two, the Christians in the assembly DID want to include and cover under the protection, under the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

No problem with my reading comprehension... Lots of problems with yourown..


This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth. So how does this now translate into, Government cannot even 'acknowledge' that religion exists and other modern day ideas of what separation of church and state mean...

You keep saying this. While there are some State constitutions which do, the preamble to the Constitution does not.... Continuing along... The "government" cannot (nor ever will, as a federal body) acknowledge (as a body) any particular religion; the 14th Amendment has forced this same issue upon the states (especially the states which were not wise enough to impliment seperation in the first place [cough-Massachusetts-cough]), with little effect upon states which already had such in place BEFORE the drafting of the Federal Constitution [cough-Virginia-cough]...


As to your next post, about the states not having state supported religions after the Constitution, you are wrong. About not all of them having one, and them being taken away, you are right. So what's your point? My point is still valid evidence that the States that implemented and approved the constitution of the United States DID NOT think that they had to forgo their public and government displayed symbols of religious observance (prayer in Congress and before courts and in public assemblies, for example).

I said, and I quote... "Not all states had "State Churches" when the Constitution was being designed. Quite a few either NEVER had one, or dismantled them years before during the revolution.... Only a minority of states, in fact, even had a state sponsored religion by the time the Constitution was coming around."

Dis[not mis]quoting me?

I could care less what they "thought"... Most states considered that important in their own borders, merely because backwards states [cough-Massachusetts-cough] did not get the issue then, is of no consiquence...


*Went to look in your hands to accept my ass back and found that you didn't have my ass at all, you were simply looking for your own ~ here's a map, perhaps Jacobia can help you, I have to ignore his post or else he'll report me in the Moderation forum (again :rolleyes: )*

Nope, still have it... You simply think the false material you garner from idiots like D. James Kennedy, and David Barton have even an inkling of truth...

Nope, still have it... You simply think the false material you garner from idiots like D. James Kennedy, and David Barton have even an inkling of truth...

Thank you for pointing that out!

But damn, between you, Cat, and Jacobia, I can't join in. ;)

READ the QUOTE! Holy crap man. :rolleyes:



WTF is with you? I clearly point out that I'm looping in the State Constitutions, the constitutions that the representatives that approved the federal constitution are writing the federal version for, and that THEY clearly include divine recognition in them.

Geez....


This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth.

In this you are stating that both the Constitution (United States constitution) and a vast majority of the state Constitutions, "do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator"... the inclusion of "too" makes the point even harder... You said the Preamble of the Constitution (which would be the United States constitution, by implication of language) includes a refference to giving thanks to some supreme being. You can keep trying to weezle out of it all you want, Heathen... But it will get you nowhere...

In this you are stating that both the Constitution (United States constitution) and a vast majority of the state Constitutions, "do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator"... the inclusion of "too" makes the point even harder... You said the Preamble of the Constitution (which would be the United States constitution, by implication of language) includes a refference to giving thanks to some supreme being. You can keep trying to weezle out of it all you want, Heathen... But it will get you nowhere...


The s-explanation, was put in brackets to point it out and make no chance of it being missed, it seems to have 'over-emphasised' itself or something, that or you just want to pretend like my improper grammer dismisses my entire argument... :rolleyes: But whatever.

But back on point, what do you mean, some do, AS IF it’s a minor and small factor or minority postion? Only THREE States, count them, three states, Tennessee, Oregon and Virginia, do NOT thank the creator of the Universe, or Almighty God, or Supreme Being, etc., in their Preambles. And even then, Virigina, for example says in it’s constitution:

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please

You can dismiss history all you want, doesn’t make it true. ALL the other 47 state Preambles thank Almighty God, or the Surpreme Being, etc.

-----


As to The Cat-Tribe, I didn’t counter your points because several pages ago I ASKED you to write that. To remind these people that they don’t HAVE to pretend that the forefathers agreed with them (when clearly they did not in practice do what is demanded of today) and they were allowed to have their opinions based on later developments, as you pointed out, again. Thank you. I’m not disputing that, and never did.

As to disputing the differences in how you and I personally interpret it differently, you and I have been over it before.

The s-explanation, was put in brackets to point it out and make no chance of it being missed, it seems to have 'over-emphasised' itself or something, that or you just want to pretend like my improper grammer dismisses my entire argument... :rolleyes: But whatever.['/quote]

It's not over-emphasized. You said that the preamble of the Constitution (Constitutions, with an S as well, including all state constitutions too) make said refference.

I hope at this point, you realize I can no longer consider you remotely Christian... You must be a heathen.

[QUOTE=Greenlander]
But back on point, what do you mean, some do, AS IF it’s a minor and small factor or minority postion? Only THREE States, count them, three states, Tennessee, Oregon and Virginia, do NOT thank the creator of the Universe, or Almighty God, or Supreme Being, etc., in their Preambles. And even then, Virigina, for example says in it’s constitution:

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please

Yep, and you seem not to know what "Christian Forbearance" means... If anything the above illustrates the extreme Agnosticism of high Deism, discounting any of the refuse that has come from your flip-flopping mouth on the issue...


You can dismiss history all you want, doesn’t make it true. ALL the other 47 state Preambles thank Almighty God, or the Surpreme Being, etc.

I could care less, all do not, and the Federal still does not.

Which is what you were initially saying... Been proven wrong, and your continues attempts to sidestep, get your hellbound hind-end nowhere...

It's not over-emphasized. You said that the preamble of the Constitution (Constitutions, with an S as well, including all state constitutions too) make said refference.

I hope at this point, you realize I can no longer consider you remotely Christian... You must be a heathen.



Yep, and you seem not to know what "Christian Forbearance" means... If anything the above illustrates the extreme Agnosticism of high Deism, discounting any of the refuse that has come from your flip-flopping mouth on the issue...



I could care less, all do not, and the Federal still does not.

Which is what you were initially saying... Been proven wrong, and your continues attempts to sidestep, get your hellbound hind-end nowhere...

Tek, temper, temper. I know he's frustrating, but you're winning on arguments. No need to excercise similar weak attacks on people. They weaken the argument.

Yes, of course, the issue is the US Constitution and what the intent of the terms in it were. It's clear what they intent was based on the many writings of the founders and the actions of the Supreme Court since its inception. But shhhhh.... let's not talk about that. Let's get caught in up in the words of state constitutions (which at the time were not subject to the first amendment) and distract ourselves from the obvious point that the first amendment was intended to create a seperation of Church and State and to secure freedom for ALL religious ideas (including the idea that there is no God). Well, it is the wish of some that we get off the point. Because if we stay on point, everyone will notice what the founders clearly intended and given that fourteenth amendment is in place those intentions are now placed on the states as well so any actions prior than that have nothing to do with how things are and should be according to the intent of the first amendment.

...
Because if we stay on point, everyone will notice what the founders clearly intended and given that fourteenth amendment is in place those intentions are now placed on the states as well so any actions prior than that have nothing to do with how things are and should be according to the intent of the first amendment.


Oh really? I can't use examples from before the 14th amendment. The ratification of the 14th Amendment, July 9, 1868, changed the rules and so the State constitutions are not applicable? Let’s see shall we, what samples do I have left?

Ratification of State Constitutions acknowledging the existence of God or a supreme being since July 9th 1868…

Alaska Jan. 3, 1959:
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

Arizona Feb. 14, 1912:
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Colorado Aug. 1, 1876:
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

Hawaii Aug. 21, 1959:
We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding heart toward all peoples of the earth do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.

Idaho July 3, 1890:
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.

Montana Nov. 8, 1889:
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of
opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

New Mexico Jan. 6, 1912:
We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

North Dakota Nov. 2, 1889:
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Oklahoma Nov. 16, 1907:
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota Nov. 2, 1889:
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.

Utah Jan. 4, 1896:
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

Washington Nov. 11, 1889:
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Wyoming July 10, 1890:
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Nope, they all do. looks like you are 100% wrong because 13 of 13 ratified Constitution AFTER the 14th amendment still acknowledge God in one fashion or another.

Oh really? I can't use examples from before the 14th amendment. The ratification of the 14th Amendment, July 9, 1868, changed the rules and so the State constitutions are not applicable? Let’s see shall we, what samples do I have left?

Ratification of State Constitutions acknowledging the existence of God or a supreme being since July 9th 1868…

Alaska Jan. 3, 1959:
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

Arizona Feb. 14, 1912:
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Colorado Aug. 1, 1876:
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

Hawaii Aug. 21, 1959:
We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding heart toward all peoples of the earth do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.

Idaho July 3, 1890:
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.

Montana Nov. 8, 1889:
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of
opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

New Mexico Jan. 6, 1912:
We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

North Dakota Nov. 2, 1889:
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Oklahoma Nov. 16, 1907:
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this
Constitution.

South Dakota Nov. 2, 1889:
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.

Utah Jan. 4, 1896:
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

Washington Nov. 11, 1889:
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Wyoming July 10, 1890:
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Nope, they all do. looks like you are 100% wrong because 13 of 13 ratified Constitution AFTER the 14th amendment still acknowledge God in one fashion or another.

And here I thought we were talking about the founding fathers and their intentions with the first amendment. Your arguments are lame. The founding fathers made it clear they wanted a seperation of Church and State at the federal level, that was the intent of the first amendment as found in the US Constitution. You use the constitutions of the colonies to suggest otherwise, but the fact is that the first amendment did not apply to the colonies then. It does now. The point is obviously that they constitutions of the colonies have no bearing on the intents of the founders since the first amendment didn't apply until 1868. You keep trying to make this about something else because if you stick to the point, you have to admit you're wrong if you're being at all reasonable. Last I checked, the state of Alaska has no bearing on the position of the founding fathers nor on the US Constitution as it was written and ratified. Any more silly arguments?

Are you going to tell me how the founding fathers were involved in the constitutions of the states or are you admitting defeat on the subject of the US Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers?

How about something completely not biased?

"We cannot know what the founders would have thought about the "values issues" that are touchstones for cultural conservatives today—abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, the right to die—but we certainly can infer what Jefferson would have thought about claims that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the foundation of American law. The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?

Here you go, just in case you forgot the topic of the thread.

Mwhahahaha, poor Jacobia brought up the 14th amendment and now he's sorry and wished he hadn't. :p

Shall I go look up the constitutions from before the federal constitution and contemporary state constitutions as well? :eek: Hahahaha

Mwhahahaha, poor Jacobia brought up the 14th amendment and now he's sorry and wished he hadn't. :p

Shall I go look up the constitutions from before the federal constitution and contemporary state constitutions as well? :eek: Hahahaha

I brought up the fourteenth amendment in that it applies now and didn't then. So your arguments that the first amendment didn't apply to the states is silly. It didn't. It does now. The constitutions of the colonies has no bearing on the intent of the federal constitution. The writings of the founding fathers and ALL interpretations of the first amendment by SCOTUS contradict your claims. Your attempts to make this about something else are not going to work. Now, are you conceding that you were wrong about the founding fathers and the intent of the first amendment? Good. This shows you're learning. I'm impressed.

I brought up the fourteenth amendment in that it applies now and didn't then.

And all 13 states ratified constitutions AFTER it, WITH God in them... So they are applied NOW, and still HAVE IT :D

The constitutions of the colonies has no bearing on the intent of the federal constitution.

The constitutions of the colonies are what ratified the federal constitution in each state.

The writings of the founding fathers and ALL interpretations of the first amendment by SCOTUS contradict your claims.

Ummmm, no. Sounded nice trying to say it though didn't it? Too bad it's not true...

The Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has. The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power. It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe
the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

Wrong again, you're 0-2, :( that's so sad


*chuckle*

A

[quote]The Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State.


My my more revisionism. In the matters of give preference to one religion over others; yes it does. In the matters of requiring a religious test, yes it does.


Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has.


The fact a people are religious has no bearing on the purpose of the clause.

It is to protect all beliefs and non-beliefs of the people.

The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power.

And yet the Constitution makes no reference to God


It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe
the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

Wrong again, you're 0-2, :( that's so sad
*chuckle*

Ahh you finally get it. The goverment shall be religious neutral.

*chuckle*
How would you feel if our country were based on Muslim principles?

And all 13 states ratified constitutions AFTER it, WITH God in them... So they are applied NOW, and still HAVE IT :D

I love how you try to pretend that's the point. It isn't. The first amendment did not apply to their constitutions. AT ALL. That's the point. It has NO BEARING on the intentions of the first amendment. How about actually sticking to the point?

(oh, and as far as your conclusion, we both know that those constitutions aren't required to be altered because they are considered to be historical documents as well as legal documents. So they do not amount as evidence of the interpretation since the fourteenth amendment.)

The constitutions of the colonies are what ratified the federal constitution in each state.

So? What's your point? Still has no bearing on the intent of the founders or the intent of the first amendment. Keep trying.

Ummmm, no. Sounded nice trying to say it though didn't it? Too bad it's not true...

The Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has. The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power. It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe
the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

Wrong again, you're 0-2, :( that's so sad


*chuckle*

I'll bold the important part that actually illuminates my point. Do you think people don't read these quotes? It actively demonstrates that they do not want the state actively or substantially involved in any religious practices (like making people call upon God). The has happened to be a concurring opinion but the reasoning was not shared by all or even most justices. The true reasoning, though you're trying to keep people from seeing it was this "Against the background of this survey of the history, purpose, and operation of religious tax exemptions, I must conclude that the exemptions do not 'serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions.' Their principal effect is to carry out secular purposes-the encouragement of public service activities and of a pluralistic society. During their ordinary operations, most churches engage in activities of a secular nature [397 U.S. 664 , 693] that benefit the community; and all churches by their existence contribute to the diversity of association, viewpoint, and enterprise so highly valued by all of us. " This case was on tax exemption for religious organizations and pointed out that the exemptions are not religious in nature. THAT was the majority opinion. The opinion protected the seperation of Church and State and religious diversity, not the other way around as you would try to frame it. Nice try though.

Now, if you'd like to talk about 0-2. Let's talk about your claims.

1.You claimed the founding fathers could not even conceive of a non-Christian nation.

You, yourself, posted a quote that the 'father of the US Constitution' said this country was not founded on Christianity and is not a Christian nation. When I pointed out that you made this claim you called me a liar, so I quoted you saying it.

Strike one.

2. You claimed the preamble to the US Constitution contains language thanking the Creator.

There is no such language and the preamble has been shown to not include the language.

Strike two.

3. You claim the belief of the founders was that it was okay to include God, the Creator, etc. in the law of the land.

Your own quotes show that more local constitutions and laws included such language, but amazingly not ONE SINGLE mention of God or the Creator in the US Constitution. Remarkably every colony's constitution included it yet somehow they 'forgot' it in the federal Constitution. The obvious conclusion based on your own evidence is that they INTENDED to leave out God and the Creator.

Strike three. But keep on swinging. It makes for a great highlight reel.

...
Now, if you'd like to talk about 0-2. Let's talk about your claims.

1.You claimed the founding fathers could not even conceive of a non-Christian nation.


Here's the real quote:
To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

And it's still true...

Jacobia 0-3


2. You claimed the preamble to the US Constitution contains language thanking the Creator.

I did not. I claimed the state's Constitution do, 47 out of 50 as a matter of fact. I proved 13 of them occurred after the 14th amendment was inserted as well and everyone was fully aware of it (BTW: why you call them saved for their historical value since they were ratified after the fact is, frankly, silly)

Jacobia 0-4

3. You claim the belief of the founders was that it was okay to include God, the Creator, etc. in the law of the land.

I never said anything like that, you're making stuff up again. I said it was okay tp recognize the existence of a Supreme Being in government institutions etc., without mandating or establishing a state religion.

Jacobia 0-5

asinine.



And the answer to my question?

Here's the real quote:
To pretend that they even conceived of a non-Christian United States is asinine.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

And it's still true...

Jacobia 0-3

You seperated it, not me. And even in context it's wrong.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;"

I'm trying to remember who posted this quote. Oh, wait, it was you. And it totally and wholly proves you WRONG. Can't say the US isn't founded on the Christian religion and at the same time claim they couldn't conceive of a non-Christian nation, particularly when many of them were *gasp* non-Christian.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10010160&postcount=89


And no fourteenth amendment so the first amendment did not apply to schools, as they are state institutions. So again no bearing on the federal government which is the topic at hand. Your attempts to change the subject are transparent.

Strike four. Keep swinging.

I did not. I claimed the state's Constitution do, 47 out of 50 as a matter of fact. I proved 13 of them occurred after the 14th amendment was inserted as well and everyone was fully aware of it (BTW: why you call them saved for their historical value since they were ratified after the fact is, frankly, silly)

Jacobia 0-4

Keep trying to change the subject. The subject at hand is the US CONSTITUTION/FIRST AMENDMENT and the INTENTS OF THE FOUNDERS. The state constitutions have no bearing on either of them. The founders' intents in the first amendment have nothing to do the state constitutions because they either came AFTER the founders were dead or BEFORE the fourteenth amendment. No matter how much you pretend we are talking about something else, we're not.

I never said anything like that, you're making stuff up again. I said it was okay tp recognize the existence of a Supreme Being in government institutions etc., without mandating or establishing a state religion.

Jacobia 0-5

You sure you never said anything like. Let's review.

This changes nothing about the fact that the preamble of the Constitution (s - to include the vast majority of the State Constitutions too) do give thanks to God, the Supreme Being and Creator, and so on and so forth.

Made up claim that thanks to God/Supreme Being/Creator is in the preamble to the US Constitution and "the vast majority of the State Constitutions too" (only the quoted part is right). Appears you think they not only intended to but DID include God/Supreme Being/Creator in the the law of land. You were wrong of course, but it's not the first time. Not even in the quoted post. But of course, you "never said anything like that" and I'm "making stuff up again". Amusingly, why do you keep claiming you didn't say stuff when I can quote you? It just makes you look silly.

*Went to look in your hands to accept my ass back and found that you didn't have my ass at all, you were simply looking for your own ~ here's a map, perhaps Jacobia can help you, I have to ignore his post or else he'll report me in the Moderation forum (again :rolleyes: )*

Knock it off.

...
The state constitutions have no bearing on either of them. The founders' intents in the first amendment have nothing to do the state constitutions because they either came AFTER the founders were dead or BEFORE the fourteenth amendment. ...



:p

*mwhahahaha

0-6

*wipes away laughter tear, snort and chuckle*

They came After the founders were dead or before the amendment eh?

*pause*

*LMAO, again*

The states range from 1787 to 1959, I think that's got both ends of your spectrum covered.. :eek: :p :D

*chuckle*

Try reading a book Jacobia.

Knock it off.

You know, I'm giving it an honest effort here... But he just keeps repeating the same (IMO mis-quotes and mis-summaries) stuff over and over again, even when I'm not talking to him he inserts his specialized form of 'baiting via proxy' clap-trap.

Tell him to put me on ignore and he can talk to other people if he doesn’t like what I have to say.

:p

*mwhahahaha

0-6

*wipes away laughter tear, snort and chuckle*

They came After the founders were dead or before the amendment eh?

*pause*

*LMAO, again*

The states range from 1787 to 1959, I think that's got both ends of your spectrum covered.. :eek: :p :D

*chuckle*

Try reading a book Jacobia.
Name one state constitution that was ratified while the founding fathers were alive AND after the fourteenth amendment applied the first amendment to the states. *Waits*

If you can't name one then the state constitution have no bearing on the founders' intentions behind the first amendment. I think that was rather clear. I'm not sure how you're missing the point.

You know, I'm giving it an honest effort here... But he just keeps repeating the same (IMO mis-quotes and mis-summaries) stuff over and over again, even when I'm not talking to him he inserts his specialized form of 'baiting via proxy' clap-trap.

Tell him to put me on ignore and he can talk to other people if he doesn’t like what I have to say.

Or you could try, oh, I don't know, debating without attacking people personally, as per the rules. I know you're capable of it. I've seen you do it. I don't know what it is that you find so upsetting about having a real and cogent debate, but it is kind of the point of the forums.

Or you could try, oh, I don't know, debating without attacking people personally, as per the rules. I know you're capable of it. I've seen you do it. I don't know what it is that you find so upsetting about having a real and cogent debate, but it is kind of the point of the forums.


You don't make 'cognate debates' some of the other people here do. How many screen names do you use to try and back up your own postions anyway?

You don't make 'cognate debates' some of the other people here do. How many screen names do you use to try and back up your own postions anyway?

Ha. I noticed in one of the other threads you made a sideways reference to someone else being me. If you can get the mods to look for you, I don't mind. I have no puppets. Not one. I had three nations back in the day, one several months before this one and one after. I let them both go more than a year ago. Perhaps the reason people back up my position and/or agree with it is because it makes sense. Or I guess you could just come up with some unreasonable conspiracy nonsense.

No. Wait. Wait. Why don't you list some of my puppets?

Not sure why you changed it to cognate, as the word has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Cognate-
1 : of the same or similar nature : generically alike
2 : related by blood; also : related on the mother's side
3 a : related by descent from the same ancestral language b of a word or morpheme : related by derivation, borrowing, or descent c of a substantive : related to a verb usually by derivation and serving as its object to reinforce the meaning

Cogent-
1 : having power to compel or constrain <cogent forces>
2 a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : CONVINCING <cogent evidence> b : PERTINENT, RELEVANT <a cogent analysis of a problem>

Convincing, pertinent, relevant - take your pick. However, cognate just doesn't make sense.

They don't seem to realize that the seperation is as much to keep government from corrupting religion as it is to keep religion from corrupting government.


No, they realize it, they just reject it. They want fudamentalist control of the country, and as we've seen on this thread, react in a hostile and immature manner when they're opposed.

You don't make 'cognate debates' some of the other people here do. How many screen names do you use to try and back up your own postions anyway?

Jocabia doesn't need puppets to boost his arguments. He runs circles around you without help.

It does happen that your position is so ridiculous that many of us join Jocabia in scorning it.

Jocabia doesn't need puppets to boost his arguments. He runs circles around you without help.

It does happen that your position is so ridiculous that many of us join Jocabia in scorning it.

TCT, you must be a puppet. It can't be possible that you'd agree with me without my pulling the strings. I mean he did quote a taxation decision to make it look like the decision did not support seperation of Church and State, but of course no more than one person could possibly notice that.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a reply on an email I sent you with about the federal marriage stuff.

And finally someone spelled my name correctly.

Jocabia doesn't need puppets to boost his arguments. He runs circles around you without help.

It does happen that your position is so ridiculous that many of us join Jocabia in scorning it.


Eww, looky there! TCT is spamming. Nicely done... :rolleyes:

Eww, looky there! TCT is spamming. Nicely done... :rolleyes:

Pardon? Replying to your suggestion that I am backing myself up with puppets is spamming? If anything wouldn't the original question be spamming as well as conspiratorial?

Eww, looky there! TCT is spamming. Nicely done... :rolleyes:

Translation: I can't win so I will change the subject.

Sorry one thing cat rarely does is spam. While you?....

Hmmm does that make me a puppet as well?

Eww, looky there! TCT is spamming. Nicely done... :rolleyes:

If you ever sincerely believe I have violated the rules of these Forums, please report me.

You've already said (and shown) you won't answer my arguments, so I guess that for your purposes my posts are spam. Too bad it is "spam" that tends to skewer you.

Greenlander, guess who said this (emphasis added):

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires the government to be strictly neutral."

Any guesses??

I agree with the statement. Do you?

Any guesses??

I agree with the statement. Do you?


President Reagan or Justice Rehnquist? Hmmm, probably Reagan though, he was better at that sort of stuff.

Of course I agree with it.

EDIT: and even if it wasn't him, it sounds like something he'd say.

And it fits perfectly well with this:
"Yet today we're told that to protect that first amendment, we must suppress prayer and expel God from our children's classrooms. In one case, a court has ruled against the right of children to say grace in their own school cafeteria before they had lunch. A group of children who sought, on their own initiative and with their parents' approval, to begin the school day with a 1-minute prayer meditation have been forbidden to do so. And some students who wanted to join in prayer or religious study on school property, even outside of regular class hours, have been banned from doing so.
~President Ronald Reagan

More edit:
And this:
"George Washington believed that religion, morality, and brotherhood were the pillars of society. He said you couldn't have morality without religion. And yet today we're told that to protect the first amendment, we must expel God, the source of all knowledge, from our children's classrooms. Well, pardon me, but the first amendment was not written to protect the American people from religion; the first amendment was written to protect the American people from government tyranny.
~President Ronald Reagan

Which is exactly what 99.99% of Christians do with the Bible. They use the parts that validate their personal morality, and ignore or down-play the parts that conflict with that morality. I don't know why any of them are asking for the Biblical concept of wrongdoing to become enshrined in American law, because if it did then they would be forbidden to pray in public (Matthew 6: 5-6), display images of Jesus (Exodus 20:4), or speak out against other people's sins (Eph 5:11,12).

This is quite random and perhaps... out of date? But the Bible also says you shouldn't wear blended (e.g. unnatural) fabrics... therefore... if you've worn polyester, you're clearly going to hell. I'm kidding.

But you're exactly right. It's so easy to pick and choose what you wish to convey, but the same can be said of all texts...

The only thing I will say on this topic, largely because I've done it in Government classes and with close (and opinionated) friends a number of times, is that I don't like the idea of invoking the ideal of a Christian God when the United States is a nation built upon the tenets of religious freedom. Plymouth (Mass Bay) and Maryland were religious enclaves for oppressed people that lived in England (Puritans, who fell subject to disfavor upon the death of Oliver Cromwell and the restoraton of the Royal Line of leadership and the Catholics of MD whom the Anglican Church of England broke from). I think of some of my closer friends, several of whom are not Christian, namely a very close Buddhist friend, a Hindu, and a Muslim, who see the word "God" everywhere... (particularly my Hindu friend who added an "s" in the Pledge of Allegiance) I just would like to see the two be separate--church and state--as intended by the framers of the Constitution.

I am, personally, Christian, a moderate, and I am personally annoyed by the reversion towards Fundamentalism. We are not a Christian Theocracy. We're the basis for the majority of world democracies (and the first successful one to live on to the present). We should try to keep what we have cause it's functioned fairly well the past 200+ years. ;)

Ummmm, no. Sounded nice trying to say it though didn't it? Too bad it's not true...

The Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has. The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power. It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe
the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

Wrong again, you're 0-2, :( that's so sad


*chuckle*


Please supply a citation for this quote. Meethinks it is fishy.

President Reagan or Justice Rehnquist? Hmmm, probably Reagan though, he was better at that sort of stuff.

Of course I agree with it.

EDIT: and even if it wasn't him, it sounds like something he'd say.

And it fits perfectly well with this:
"Yet today we're told that to protect that first amendment, we must suppress prayer and expel God from our children's classrooms. In one case, a court has ruled against the right of children to say grace in their own school cafeteria before they had lunch. A group of children who sought, on their own initiative and with their parents' approval, to begin the school day with a 1-minute prayer meditation have been forbidden to do so. And some students who wanted to join in prayer or religious study on school property, even outside of regular class hours, have been banned from doing so.
~President Ronald Reagan

More edit:
And this:
"George Washington believed that religion, morality, and brotherhood were the pillars of society. He said you couldn't have morality without religion. And yet today we're told that to protect the first amendment, we must expel God, the source of all knowledge, from our children's classrooms. Well, pardon me, but the first amendment was not written to protect the American people from religion; the first amendment was written to protect the American people from government tyranny.
~President Ronald Reagan

It was Reagan. Too bad he lost his accuracy when it came to the other two quotes. Nor are they consistent.

Please supply a citation for this quote. Meethinks it is fishy.


That is indented in it's entirety because I didn't write it... However, only the very last part of it is from case law...WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

HOWEVER: Chief Justice BURGER is primarily referencing (from the 1970 case) the ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) case (below) where Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court...


We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [343 U.S. 306, 314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306

It was Reagan. Too bad he lost his accuracy when it came to the other two quotes. Nor are they consistent.


It's entirely consistent. That's just it, I find it to be entirely composed and giving the same message. That's why I don't see a whole lot of point in arguing with you over case law, we wouldn't rule the same way after hearing the same cases. I agree with Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist - I think Reagan quotes are the best since Theodore Rosevelt and running with Lincoln for inspiring... “I” think they are right.

That is indented in it's entirety because I didn't write it... However, only the very last part of it is from case law...WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

HOWEVER: Chief Justice BURGER is primarily referencing (from the 1970 case) the ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) case (below) where Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court...


We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [343 U.S. 306, 314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306


:headbang: :headbang:

Please give the source for the entire original quotation.

It's entirely consistent. That's just it, I find it to be entirely composed and giving the same message. That's why I don't see a whole lot of point in arguing with you over case law, we wouldn't rule the same way after hearing the same cases. I agree with Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist - I think Reagan quotes are the best since Theodore Rosevelt and running with Lincoln for inspiring... “I” think they are right.

The statements are inaccurate. For example, no case has ever held that individual students "cannnot say grace in their own school cafeteria before they had lunch."

Second, they are inconsistent. Saying that "Church and state are, and must remain, separate" and "the government [must] be strictly neutral" is not consistent with saying we should teach about "God, the source of all knowledge, in our children's classrooms."

:headbang: :headbang:

Please give the source for the entire original quotation.


The truth is I don't have the original source, I have it saved with other quotes I liked... I saved it with the references I gave you. Of the two cases, I believe the quotation marks in the first quote are the WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK case and the reference in there is a quote is to the earlier case I linked to above.

It's entirely consistent. That's just it, I find it to be entirely composed and giving the same message. That's why I don't see a whole lot of point in arguing with you over case law, we wouldn't rule the same way after hearing the same cases. I agree with Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist - I think Reagan quotes are the best since Theodore Rosevelt and running with Lincoln for inspiring... “I” think they are right.

Actually he is off on Washington.

Washington also said that


The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of once class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.


http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Washingtons_Letter_To_Touro_Synagogue.pdf?docID=146

That is not exactly a statement that you must be a Christian to be a good citizen.

Again no Religious test is required and that is what the establishment clause protects us from.

The statements are inaccurate. For example, no case has ever held that individual students "cannnot say grace in their own school cafeteria before they had lunch."

Second, they are inconsistent. Saying that "Church and state are, and must remain, separate" and "the government [must] be strictly neutral" is not consistent with saying we should teach about "God, the source of all knowledge, in our children's classrooms."


As to who Reagan was quoting, you'll have to search that, I don't know. As to strictly 'neutral' and letting the cat out, there are two different levels that you and I disagree with.

I think neutrality requires acceptance and respect and tolerant adjustment for the religious practices of the people, "For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." (snippet from the quote linked to above) and I think this type of thinking and ruling from our courts is conducive and applies to the scenario for the US that Reagan was talking about and building, but not in the one you would have us live in, government would be callous and favor the non-believer over the believer in your enforcement of the first amendment scenario.

That is not exactly a statement that you must be a Christian to be a good citizen.

Agreed.

Again no Religious test is required and that is what the establishment clause protects us from.

Agreed.

The truth is I don't have the original source, I have it saved with other quotes I liked... I saved it with the references I gave you. Of the two cases, I believe the quotation marks in the first quote are the WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK case and the reference in there is a quote is to the earlier case I linked to above.

So, you are representing the quote as a decision of SCOTUS written by Chief Justice Burger, but you don't actually know if it was?

Nice.

I can't find the quote. That is why I thought it was fishy.

So, you are representing the quote as a decision of SCOTUS written by Chief Justice Burger, but you don't actually know if it was?

Nice.

I can't find the quote. That is why I thought it was fishy.

Nah, the only 'quoted' name I used in the first quote was from Goldberg, J., concurring from the 1970 case, I assumed you saw that and were looking for who said the "a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being" stuff that didn't have a name directly under it... (but I linked to now, for you above).

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?
I will cut to the chase: I think that article is a bunch of bunk. You don't think the Constitution has a deeply-rooted Biblical, if not down-right Christian, basis? Read the whole document, and more importantly, read the Declaration of Independence. Anyone who can read these two fundamental documents and think the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious men needs to get him/herself checked.


BTW, if you read the First Amendment in a HONEST manner, you will find that the mythical "wall of separation" between Church and State was meant to prevent the State from meddling in Church affairs, not otherwise...

Anyone who can read these two fundamental documents and think the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious men needs to get him/herself checked.

or they might just know a thing or two about the authors

Anyone who can read these two fundamental documents and think the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious men needs to get him/herself checked.

And why would them being deeply religious mean they wanted the States to be ? Or more specifically: that they wanted one specific form of religion, as opposed to for instance a country welcoming everything spiritual/religious without bias ? Not Protestant, not Catholic, not Islamic, not Jewish, not Buddhist - but free ?

The writings of the founding fathers and ALL interpretations of the first amendment by SCOTUS contradict your claims.

Ummmm, no. Sounded nice trying to say it though didn't it? Too bad it's not true...

The Establishment Clause does not demand that in every and all aspects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Instead, the Establishment Clause must be viewed with the additional understanding that we have been, and continue to be, a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being, and always has. The fact that the Founding Fathers (whether Christian or Deist or other) believed devotedly (or at least publicly and with intent) that there is a God and that the unalienable rights of man were founded and entrenched in them being granted to us by the Higher Power. It is clearly evidenced in everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.

The Establishment Clause "does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises . . . as to have meaningful and practical impact." Id. at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Thus, the Court has "declined to construe
the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history." Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 671 (1970).

Wrong again, you're 0-2, :( that's so sad


*chuckle*

That is indented in it's entirety because I didn't write it... However, only the very last part of it is from case law...WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

HOWEVER: Chief Justice BURGER is primarily referencing (from the 1970 case) the ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) case (below) where Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court... *snip*

The truth is I don't have the original source, I have it saved with other quotes I liked... I saved it with the references I gave you. Of the two cases, I believe the quotation marks in the first quote are the WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK case and the reference in there is a quote is to the earlier case I linked to above.

Nah, the only 'quoted' name I used in the first quote was from Goldberg, J., concurring from the 1970 case, I assumed you saw that and were looking for who said the "a religious people whose institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being" stuff that didn't have a name directly under it... (but I linked to now, for you above).

So, Chuckles has now admitted this is not a quote from a Supreme Court holding.

So, Jocabia was right.

I will cut to the chase: I think that article is a bunch of bunk. You don't think the Constitution has a deeply-rooted Biblical, if not down-right Christian, basis? Read the whole document, and more importantly, read the Declaration of Independence. Anyone who can read these two fundamental documents and think the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious men needs to get him/herself checked.

I challenge you to point to anything in the Constitution that has "a deeply-rooted Biblical, if not down-right Christian basis."

Trying to confuse it with the DofI is a cute trick, but it won't work. (Moreover, the DofI is not particularly Biblical or Christian. It refers to "Nature's God.")

Most of the Founders were deeply religious. That is why they wanted separation of Church and State. They knew it was good for both the Church and the State.

Plus, if your version of the facts were true and these deeply religious men founded the Constitution on Christianity, how do you explain the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art11), Article 11:

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

BTW, if you read the First Amendment in a HONEST manner, you will find that the mythical "wall of separation" between Church and State was meant to prevent the State from meddling in Church affairs, not otherwise...

Bullshit. As the article explains, the "wall of separation" goes both ways.

You are so, so, so wrong. The phrase "wall of seperation" has been adopted by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 125 years.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

BTW, if you read the First Amendment in a HONEST manner, you will find that the mythical "wall of separation" between Church and State was meant to prevent the State from meddling in Church affairs, not otherwise...


And what do you define as an "honest" manner? Separation of church and state "mythical"? Show me where in the Constitution it says Evangelical Protestant Christianity (or its 18th century equivalent) should have any say over the government. Show me where it specifically endorses any religion or says this country should be governed by said religion.

I will cut to the chase: I think that article is a bunch of bunk. You don't think the Constitution has a deeply-rooted Biblical, if not down-right Christian, basis? Read the whole document, and more importantly, read the Declaration of Independence. Anyone who can read these two fundamental documents and think the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious men needs to get him/herself checked.


BTW, if you read the First Amendment in a HONEST manner, you will find that the mythical "wall of separation" between Church and State was meant to prevent the State from meddling in Church affairs, not otherwise...

BTW, this would come as a real suprise to James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

... the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
And still today, the USA remains the most religious major western nation, far more so than countries such as England, which has an established religion.

That is what makes American Christian claims that they are persecuted or denied freedom to practice so utterly absurd, not to mention insulting to those elsewhere in the world who suffer genuine religious oppression. It's like comparing a child who's denied candy before mealtimes to one who's being beaten and sexually abused.

Psst The Constitution supplanted the DOI. The so called Christian God references are rather generic to be counted as a "SEE!"




BTW, if you read the First Amendment in a HONEST manner, you will find that the mythical "wall of separation" between Church and State was meant to prevent the State from meddling in Church affairs, not otherwise...

*puts on his Republican Christian Conservative Blinders*

Hey you are right it doesn't say anything at all!

Myth? Guess you never read Jefferson or Madison.

So, Chuckles has now admitted this is not a quote from a Supreme Court holding.

So, Jocabia was right.


You're not much of lawyer are you? That or you just can't count. With your help, I've now posted THREE supreme court holdings that I agree with.

So I have to say that Jacobia is still 0-6

You're not much of lawyer are you? That or you just can't count. With your help, I've now poste THREE supreme court holdings that I agree with.

So I have to say that Jacobia is still 0-6

Nice try to dodge your lack of a source for the quote you used with Jacobia.

Which 3 are you now claiming are SCOTUS holdings that you agree with?

Please list the names of the 3 cases.

"For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."
There is a noticeable difference between an indifference towards religions and giving preferential treatment to those with no religion.

Check and Mate.

Bravo!! Let's leave God in heaven (if it does exists) and men in politics.

And what do you define as an "honest" manner? Separation of church and state "mythical"? Show me where in the Constitution it says Evangelical Protestant Christianity (or its 18th century equivalent) should have any say over the government. Show me where it specifically endorses any religion or says this country should be governed by said religion.
I would suggest that for Panhandlia, his definition of "an honest manner" is synonymous with "the way I read it" and nothing more.

Nice try to dodge your lack of a source for the quote you used with Jacobia.

Which 3 are you now claiming are SCOTUS holdings that you agree with?

Please list the names of the 3 cases.

The holdings by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Goldberg and Justice Douglas, the three you quoted in your post from the discussion last night….


EDIT: ah, I get what you're nit-picking about. Two cases, three judges. Okay, TWO rulings and several quotes.

The holdings by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Goldberg and Justice Douglas, the three you quoted in your post from the discussion last night….

what were the names of the three cases?

you claim to agree with them, but you don't even know what they are!

EDIT: I honsestly donlt know which cases you think you are quoting.

The very fact that the Consitution uses the term "Creator" tells us exactly what the founding fathers meant. Nearly all were active members of their churchs and in many original colonies you had to prove memebership in good standing in SOME church to be elected to public office. Separation of Church and State, which is not in the Consitution was meant to protect the Church, not the state by Jefferson's own words. Purely meaning the federal government could not mandate which church you attended. Consitutionally speaking there isn't even a problem with State mandated churchs, there just can't be a federal one. Jefferson said teh most important thing a child should learn from public school is God. The signers of the Consititution opened every day with prayer. That this country was built on God and the Bible is not some theoretical argument but known historic fact. People are so desperate to not be accountable to God that they will jump through every hoop imaginable to erase God from this country and ignore historic truth and presedent. Its very sad. If any of the founding fathers could see what had become of their nation I think we'd hear a wail of grief that carried from shore to shore!
Okay, but it doesn't matter what it is based on. The truth is the government doesn't have the right to decide about moral issues. Gay rights, abortion(I don't agree with it but it is the woman's right), ect are moral issues not legal ones. The government is over stepping it's boundries. No matter what the bible says.

The holdings by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Goldberg and Justice Douglas, the three you quoted in your post from the discussion last night….


EDIT: ah, I get what you're nit-picking about. Two cases, three judges. Okay, TWO rulings and several quotes.

OK my best quess is:
Zorach v. Clauson. 343 US 306 (1952).
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. 397 US 664 (1970)
Abington Township v. Schempp. 374 US 203 (1963). (Goldberg J., concurrence)

Are these the three opinions you agree with? (only 2 are majority opinions)

OK my best quess is:
Zorach v. Clauson. 343 US 306 (1952).
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. 397 US 664 (1970)
Abington Township v. Schempp. 374 US 203 (1963). (Goldberg J., concurrence)

Are these the three opinions you agree with? (only 2 are majority opinions)



~ MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
In Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Nebraska's practice of beginning each day in its state legislature with a non-denominational prayer. In an opinion relying to an unusual degree on framer's intent, the Court upheld the practice, reasoning that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also voted to hire a congressional chaplain and begin its legislative days with a prayer, and therefore could not have intended in the Establishment Clause to have prohibited legislative prayers. Given what the majority saw as clear framer's intent, the Court refused to apply the Lemon test usually used in Establishment Clause cases.

~ WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
(Chief Justice Burger)


~ ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)
(Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court)

You temporarily forgot the Marsh v. Chambers case I mentioned earlier in the thread, so I'm back to three cases and adding the opinions of White, Blackmaun, Powell Rehnquist and O'Connor to my list and Burgur in two different cases.

~ MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
In Marsh v Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Nebraska's practice of beginning each day in its state legislature with a non-denominational prayer. In an opinion relying to an unusual degree on framer's intent, the Court upheld the practice, reasoning that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also voted to hire a congressional chaplain and begin its legislative days with a prayer, and therefore could not have intended in the Establishment Clause to have prohibited legislative prayers. Given what the majority saw as clear framer's intent, the Court refused to apply the Lemon test usually used in Establishment Clause cases.

~ WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
(Chief Justice Burger)


~ ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)
(Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court)

You temporarily forgot the Marsh v. Chambers case I mentioned earlier in the thread, so I'm back to three cases and adding the opinions of White, Blackmaun, Powell Rehnquist and O'Connor to my list and Burgur in two different cases.

Finally.

Now I can get back to you on what those cases actually say. Stray concurrences and dissents don't count as a SCOTUS decision.

...
Abington Township v. Schempp. 374 US 203 (1963). (Goldberg J., concurring)

Ah, well, I like this part too, JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court...
we gave specific recognition to the proposition that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." Likewise each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God.

Parts of that were in the original post of mine...

Okay, but it doesn't matter what it is based on. The truth is the government doesn't have the right to decide about moral issues. Gay rights, abortion(I don't agree with it but it is the woman's right), ect are moral issues not legal ones. The government is over stepping it's boundries. No matter what the bible says.

Ok, the government does have a right to govern moral values if the people allow it. If the majority of americans think gay marrage is wrong then the government has the right to ban it. Now I personally don't have anything wrong with gay marrage or abortion (to a point), but government does have the right to govern moral values if it is found to be accepted by the majority. Look at the civil rights movement. back in the 1930's the majority of americans eather agreed with Jim Crow laws in the south or didn't really care eather way if it was changed. Then more protest came about and americans as a whole started to change their opinon now the majority opinon was that MORALLY" we couldn't do what we were doing to African Americans because it was wrong. So the law changed. Their are people out there that want to bring back Jim Crow laws. They think that Jim Crow laws are good laws and it is morally wrong for their not to be Jim Crow laws. So of course the government can decide moral values they do it all the time! It is against the law to be a prostitute. It is against the law to do insider trading. It is against the law to take bribes. All of these are morals. Some people don't think prostitution is wrong (like me if woman wants prostitute herself I say let her do it.) but the majority opinon, in most of this country, on this moral issue is that it is wrong. So most of the counrty it is illegal. So yes the government does have the power to regulate what is morally right or wrong only if the people will let them do it.

Finally.

Now I can get back to you on what those cases actually say....


Haha! You see, you will get back to us about what 'you' think they mean, but you and I already agreed that we can't agree about what even a supposed simpleton (not that I think he really was one) like Reagan says, how then, can 'we' agree that 'your' interpretation of how a precedent should be ruled in a later case? I suspect that your circuit court (e.g.,) would rule differently than my circuit court (e.g,) and the SCOTUS would overrule us both?

So you can really only say what YOU think the cases actually say to you.

Haha! You see, you will get back to us about what 'you' think they mean, but you and I already agreed that we can't agree about what even a supposed simpleton (not that I think he really was one) like Reagan says, how then, can 'we' agree that 'your' interpretation of how a precedent should be ruled in a later case? I suspect that your circuit court (e.g.,) would rule differently than my circuit court (e.g,) and the SCOTUS would overrule us both?

So you can really only say what YOU think the cases actually say to you.

Unlike you, I will actually read the cases and then provide quotes from them. Others can judge for themselves who is correct.

If I give you an apple, but you call it a banana - it doesn't change the apple. You can interpret the apple however you like, but it won't be a banana.

Ah, well, I like this part too, JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court...
we gave specific recognition to the proposition that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." Likewise each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God.

Parts of that were in the original post of mine...

So are you adding that case to your list?

So are you adding that case to your list?

That case is a bit trickier, I don't entirely agree with that one, but really, the fact is, the teacher shouldn't have been quoting a verse every morning and starting class with the lord's prayer... so in that aspect, I agree with the ruling, they stopped it.

I admit that you will be able to make it look like I'm disagreeing with myself with that case, but the truth is, I think it all works together with the Reagan quotes. You think they don't make one big grand scheme/theory, I think they do work together, including not letting teachers choose their own scripture quotes to open each day in a public classroom.


EDIT: Hypothetically, I would allow a teacher to set a plan for a different group of students per day to quote one verse of their own choice from any book whatsoever each day, and if that ended up being a Bible, Torah, Qur'an, Wiccan, Pagan or Oriental belief or whatever quote, so be it. I don’t think that ruling would ban that practice, But I'm not quite confident that you would agree?

That is indented in it's entirety because I didn't write it... However, only the very last part of it is from case law...WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

HOWEVER: Chief Justice BURGER is primarily referencing (from the 1970 case) the ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) case (below) where Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court...


We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [343 U.S. 306, 314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. [b]But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.[b]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306

Whoops. Even your own quote disagrees with your suggested practices. This says clearly that you can allow students to leave class to worship but they cannot worship in class. But you're asking that they worship IN CLASS, are you?

EDIT: Hypothetically, I would allow a teacher to set a plan for a different group of students per day to quote one verse of their own choice from any book whatsoever each day, and if that ended up being a Bible, Torah, Qur'an, Wiccan, Pagan or Oriental belief or whatever quote, so be it. I don’t think that ruling would ban that practice, But I'm not quite confident that you would agree?

Man. You really should be more consistent.

"But, no, wait, you have problems with reading comprehension. That's not what it says!" says Greenlander.

Let's check and see if we can find more explicit language from the same justice, same case.

It takes obtuse reasoning to inject any issue of the "free exercise" of religion into the present case. No one is forced to go to the religious classroom and no religious exercise or instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools. A student need not take religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious devotions, if any.

Hmmm... yep. He clearly says that this case is not a violation because it brings "no religious exercise or instruction to the classroom". In other words, if it did, it would be a violation.

What is it you always say? "Read your own damn link [Greenlander], you have no idea what you are talking about or you do and you are lying."

EDIT: In case you were wondering, that is what "a returned quote back at him" is. That's how it's used. And that is the best way to make people look silly. I have a student right now, but I'd happy to give you more instruction later.

Whoops. Even your own quote disagrees with your suggested practices. This says clearly that you can allow students to leave class to worship but they cannot worship in class. But you're asking that they worship IN CLASS, are you?

I already said that they can't be forced to 'worship' in class, from the very post directly above yours :rolleyes:

Man. You really should be more consistent.

"But, no, wait, you have problems with reading comprehension. That's not what it says!" says Greenlander.

It's entirely what it says, and I DO agree with it. Perhaps it's time you stoped making a big fat Strawman to burn down, eh?

Hmmm... yep. He clearly says that this case is not a violation because it brings "no religious exercise or instruction to the classroom". In other words, if it did, it would be a violation. And that's why I said that the teacher shouldn't be allowed to dictate it on own. Isn't it nice how the ruling and I agree with each other, it's comfortable that way.


What is it you always say? "Read your own damn link [Greenlander], you have no idea what you are talking about or you do and you are lying."

This time you might want to change it to, read the damn 'post' in your case... But yeah, that's about right. I already said I agreed with it and here you are making a great big fuss nothing...

My own words: Hypothetically, I would allow a teacher to set a plan for a different group of students per day to quote one verse of their own choice from any book whatsoever each day, and if that ended up being a Bible, Torah, Qur'an, Wiccan, Pagan or Oriental belief or whatever quote, so be it. I don’t think that ruling would ban that practice, But I'm not quite confident that you would agree?

That would not be a religious 'instruction' or coercive to establishing a religion. It is nothing more than student's participating and exchanging their community diversity via a 'show and tell' sharing session about themselves, their beliefs, their customs and likes and dislikes etc., similar to a 'what I did last summer' student exchange... Regulated for civility but not content would be best, IMO. Banning the right to discuss religious beliefs would amount to nothing more than the suppression of ideas and thoughts in the public forum and thus, ‘favoring the non-believer over the believer.’

I already said that they can't be forced to 'worship' in class, from the very post directly above yours :rolleyes:



It's entirely what it says, and I DO agree with it. Perhaps it's time you stoped making a big fat Strawman to burn down, eh?

And that's why I said that the teacher shouldn't be allowed to dictate it on own. Isn't it nice how the ruling and I agree with each other, it's comfortable that way.



This time you might want to change it to, read the damn 'post' in your case... But yeah, that's about right. I already said I agreed with it and here you are making a great big fuss nothing...

My own words: Hypothetically, I would allow a teacher to set a plan for a different group of students per day to quote one verse of their own choice from any book whatsoever each day, and if that ended up being a Bible, Torah, Qur'an, Wiccan, Pagan or Oriental belief or whatever quote, so be it. I don’t think that ruling would ban that practice, But I'm not quite confident that you would agree?

That would not be a religious 'instruction' or coercive to establishing a religion. It is nothing more than student's participating and exchanging their community diversity via a 'show and tell' sharing session about themselves, their beliefs, their customs and likes and dislikes etc., similar to a 'what I did last summer' student exchange... Regulated for civility but not content would be best, IMO. Banning the right to discuss religious beliefs would amount to nothing more than the suppression of ideas and thoughts in the public forum and thus, ‘favoring the non-believer over the believer.’

If the purpose was not by design or in practice religious then it would be considered acceptable. You appear to have designed it for the purpose of them expressing their religious beliefs as evidenced by the list of books you presented. I noticed you didn't list Kafka or Neruda.

If the purpose was not by design or in practice religious then it would be considered acceptable. You appear to have designed it for the purpose of them expressing their religious beliefs as evidenced by the list of books you presented. I noticed you didn't list Kafka or Neruda.

I did design it for the purpose of them being able and even encouraged to express their own religious beliefs and share their personal scriptures or quotes or phrases that they find meaningful etc., that's what I meant, yes.

I did design it for the purpose of them being able and even encouraged to express their own religious beliefs and share their personal scriptures or quotes or phrases that they find meaningful etc., that's what I meant, yes.

And it can't be done for that purpose, even according to the judge you quoted. It's not anti-religion to not do specifically to support the practice of religion. At my high school, we discussed portions of the Bible in my literature classes. It's one of the most alluded to documents in history. It makes sense to discuss it in that context. No violation. However, if the teacher stands up and says cite your favorite passage from whatever your religion is, it's a violation of the first amendment. Chief Justice Burger makes the point that you cannot design an activity for the purpose of supporting religion in the classroom. He also makes the point that the case he was referring to does no such thing.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out for anyone reading this (Greenlander most likely already knows this) that Burger is the author of the Lemon test.

But then you could go back really really far and find that the first human rules were not created by religion, but were in fact the convenient inventions of mere mortals.

Or created out of spirituality used to try to separate one from reality.

How about something completely not biased?

"We cannot know what the founders would have thought about the "values issues" that are touchstones for cultural conservatives today—abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, the right to die—but we certainly can infer what Jefferson would have thought about claims that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the foundation of American law. The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?

I find it true. What irritates me the most about religious people is when they try to justify their positions as saying the founders would approve of it because they are christians. I'm paleo conservative and I abhore these idiots trying to re-write history because they are just fucking ignorant of anything pre-WW2.

I mean I take the time to read the founder's writings and the subject of god has very little to do with the ideas they were fighting for. They were far more concerned with how to better govern the colonies than worshiping.

... However, if the teacher stands up and says cite your favorite passage from whatever your religion is, it's a violation of the first amendment.

I disagree. I do not think that a classroom exercise of exchanging ideas, even religious or philosophical ones, and the sharing of personal perspectives and beliefs between students in the public classroom establishes a religion nor does it support religion over non-religion. Not allowing it by banning the teachers ability to bring up the very topic does nothing but suppress ideas, philosophies and beliefs between students. It excludes rather than includes, it bans intellectual discussion and discovery and limits rather than widens the experiences of what the students are exposed to.

Chief Justice Burger makes the point that you cannot design an activity for the purpose of supporting religion in the classroom.

Proselytizing and open discussion are two entirely different things. Supporting or lifting up one sect over another would be when the teacher’s (The State’s) approved religion only was by rule or via curriculum, used or favored and that would be endorsing and or establishing a religion and should not be allowed, that is what the establishment clause was designed to stop. Whereas, allowing the students to exchange their own ideas and experiences, including their personal beliefs and philosophies, would do no such thing, and thus should be permitted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…

We should loath the idea and curb the ability of the state to restrict the speech of others, even the speech of students in a classroom.

I disagree. I do not think that a classroom exercise of exchanging ideas, even religious or philosophical ones, and the sharing of personal perspectives and beliefs between students in the public classroom establishes a religion nor does it support religion over non-religion. Not allowing it by banning the teachers ability to bring up the very topic does nothing but suppress ideas, philosophies and beliefs between students. It excludes rather than includes, it bans intellectual discussion and discovery and limits rather than widens the experiences of what the students are exposed to.

Not true. Children are encouraged to explore their religions and personal philosophies. Children are free to attend church where exploring their religion is more appropraite. They are encouraged to talk with their parents where exploring their religion is more appropriate. You pretend like it's not prosyletizing but in practice it would almost certainly be exactly that. You can't REQUIRE people to exhange religious ideas. That's part of the idea of freedom of religion. Children are required to be in class and they must either participate or alienate themselves by not participating. That's part of the danger of the teacher offering up his/her religious preferences. You position students to be unfairly and in some cases unavoidably influences by the religious preferences of classmates and the teacher. Disallowing it in the classroom isn't preventing it. It's simply not becoming entwined in it, avoiding dealing with a child's religion altogether.

When I am a parent, as a Christian, I absolutely do not want other children being encouraged as a class activity to tell my child what the bible 'says'. I find many Christians to be fairly ignorant of the Bible, generally only learning the passages that support what they want it to say, bastardizing its message, and the state does not have the right nor the responsibility to expose my children to their bastardizations.

Proselytizing and open discussion are two entirely different things. Supporting or lifting up one sect over another would be when the teacher’s (The State’s) approved religion only was by rule or via curriculum, used or favored and that would be endorsing and or establishing a religion and should not be allowed, that is what the establishment clause was designed to stop. Whereas, allowing the students to exchange their own ideas and experiences, including their personal beliefs and philosophies, would do no such thing, and thus should be permitted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…

We should loath the idea and curb the ability of the state to restrict the speech of others, even the speech of students in a classroom.

Freedom of speech is abridged ALL THE TIME in the classroom. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want whenever you want. Otherwise, isn't the teachers freedom of speech being abridged every time they are 'banned' from offering up a morning prayer every morning. The students are as much a part of the classroom as the teacher. Establishing a time specifically for citing their favorite passages is favoring religion over non-religion. You have a place where you can cite your favorite passages. It's called church.

*snip*

I entirely disagree. It doesn’t matter if children do or do not explore their own religions and personal philosophies at home or with their families, they don’t have to, that’s what the establishment clause protects, you can or do not have to, as you choose.

However, being exposed to your community’s diversity and listening and discussing via the exchange of ideas, philosophies and beliefs, thoughts and feelings about holidays and events be it secular or religious in nature changes nothing. Exposing and learning is what schooling is all about

As to your argument that you don’t want your children exposed to ideas you don’t approve of… Are you really sure you want to use that argument? What if I was talking about the ability to discuss something other than religion?...

Not true. Children are encouraged to explore their homosexuality and personal philosophies. Children are free to attend 'social clubs' where exploring their homosexuality is more appropraite. They are encouraged to talk with their parents where exploring their homosexuality is more appropriate. You pretend like it's not prosyletizing but in practice it would almost certainly be exactly that. You can't REQUIRE people to exhange homosexuality ideas. That's part of the idea of freedom of homosexuality. Children are required to be in class and they must either participate or alienate themselves by not participating. That's part of the danger of the teacher offering up his/her homosexuality preferences. You position students to be unfairly and in some cases unavoidably influences by the homosexuality preferences of classmates and the teacher. Disallowing it in the classroom isn't preventing it. It's simply not becoming entwined in it, avoiding dealing with a child's homosexuality altogether.

As you can see, I exchanged ‘religion and bible’ with homosexuality, to show you what your argument sounds like… Then with that in mind, finish it again...

When I am a parent, as a Christian, I absolutely do not want other children being encouraged as a class activity to tell my child what their homosexuality 'says'. I find many Christians to be fairly ignorant of the homosexuality, generally only learning the passages that support what they want it to say, bastardizing its message, and the state does not have the right nor the responsibility to expose my children to their bastardizations.

I entirely disagree. It doesn’t matter if children do or do not explore their own religions and personal philosophies at home or with their families, they don’t have to, that’s what the establishment clause protects, you can or do not have to, as you choose.

However, being exposed to your community’s diversity and listening and discussing via the exchange of ideas, philosophies and beliefs, thoughts and feelings about holidays and events be it secular or religious in nature changes nothing. Exposing and learning is what schooling is all about

Except when it violates the free excercise of my religion or my children's religions. I like many people in this country find this to be a violation. In fact, it's generally only a subset of Christians that wish for these types of activities to take place in the school. By no coincidence, they are the majority in this country. I suspect if this were a majoritively Muslim country the tune by Christians would be much different. Regardless, religious freedom means that my children will be taught to explore their religions on my terms, not on the government's terms.

As to your argument that you don’t want your children exposed to ideas you don’t approve of… Are you really sure you want to use that argument?

Not true. Children are encouraged to explore their homosexuality and personal philosophies. Children are free to attend 'social clubs' where exploring their homosexuality is more appropraite. They are encouraged to talk with their parents where exploring their homosexuality is more appropriate. You pretend like it's not prosyletizing but in practice it would almost certainly be exactly that. You can't REQUIRE people to exhange homosexuality ideas. That's part of the idea of freedom of homosexuality. Children are required to be in class and they must either participate or alienate themselves by not participating. That's part of the danger of the teacher offering up his/her homosexuality preferences. You position students to be unfairly and in some cases unavoidably influences by the homosexuality preferences of classmates and the teacher. Disallowing it in the classroom isn't preventing it. It's simply not becoming entwined in it, avoiding dealing with a child's homosexuality altogether.

As you can see, I exchanged ‘religion and bible’ with homosexuality, to show you what your argument sounds like… Then with that in mind, finish it again...

First, it's not about exposure, it's about being forced to explore other religions in a public classroom.

Yes, I would equally disapprove if sexuality was discussed just to discuss sexuality. I have said religious documents have a place in discussion of literature because much literature alludes to those documents. Sexuality should be discussed in sex ed where it is a necessary part of the curriculum, but outside of that it should be kept outside the classroom. And in sex ed, it should be a discussion of what sexuality the participants are. Merely an understanding of sexuality and related science. I would be equally upset if the teacher encouraged students to talk about what STD's they've had or how many times they had sex. However, sex and STD's are also discussed in a health classroom. I don't consider those kinds of personal issues to be a part of the free exchange of ideas. Nor do you.

As far as clubs, religious clubs often exist in high schools. There was a gospel choir at my high school. I have no problem with religious clubs or clubs that act to support people of various sexualities. So your analogy actually accentuates my argument, and yes, I'm sure I wish to use it.

When I am a parent, as a Christian, I absolutely do not want other children being encouraged as a class activity to tell my child what their homosexuality 'says'. I find many Christians to be fairly ignorant of the homosexuality, generally only learning the passages that support what they want it to say, bastardizing its message, and the state does not have the right nor the responsibility to expose my children to their bastardizations.
Again, you're not really hurting my argument. I don't think sexuality should be a topic that encourages children to exchange or explore their sexualities in the classroom so you're really supporting my point.

Amusingly, by comparing them, you've just accepted that if you don't want to have a classroom activity where children stand up and talk about their sexualities, sexual activity, and personal sexual experiences then it is equally inappropriate for to discuss something as personal as religion. Thank you for making my point.

*snip*

I still disagree, I understand what you are saying and I come to a different conclussion...


I'll be interested in hearing your response the next time someone complains about homosexual acceptance ideology being taught in their children's schools, I'll remember that you said they have the right to say that they don't have to let their schools read "Tommy has two Daddy's" or discuss any other 'learn' about your community's beliefs and philosophy stuff.

I say children can be exposed to the social ideas and beliefs of their classmates and learn about their neighbors from their contemporaries (in age bracket etc.,) without mandating or encouraging the State’s indoctrination religion or crossing the establishment clause, obviously you feel differently.

I still disagree, I understand what you are saying and I come to a different conclussion...

I'll be interested in hearing your response the next time someone complains about homosexual acceptance ideology being taught in their children's schools, I'll remember that you said they have the right to say that they don't have to let their schools read "Tommy has two Daddy's" or discuss any other 'learn' about your community's beliefs and philosophy stuff.

Actually, I think sometimes it is necessary to discuss, but there is a difference. The purpose of the discussion must not be simply to explore those personal beliefs. For example, an Indian (actually from India, not just mentioning her nationality) girl starts to attend an all white school in rural Indiana (this actually happened when I was in eight grade). The teacher introduces her and explains why she looks different and little bit about why she is dressed differently than us and encourages us to ask questions (for a short period on ONE day). This is to encourage tolerance and understanding but not with the express purpose or even the effect of exploring her religion. It was more than likely necessary for her protection, in fact. It's not inappropriate for the school to make sure that the students are in a safe environment. Sometimes that requires fostering understanding. That's far from spending time each morning reading passages from our religious documents, particularly when the very practice gives extra time and weight to the majority, the group that needs the least help with tolerance.

I also don't think it's inappropriate to expose children to the fact that some children have divorced parents and some children have same-sex parents. I don't think it's their place to put value on those families one way or the other. I certainly don't think it's their place to explore sexuality and particularly I don't think it's their place to explore the sexuality of the children in the classroom or of their parents. Your activity does exactly that. It explores the personal beliefs of those children and of their parents. I would not encourage an activity where children stood up and said, "My parents are divorced.", "My parents are married.", "I have two mommies.", "My grandmother raises me because my father shot my mother then himself.", "My mommy says my daddy maspurdetes too much." or whatever. I also wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "I'm a boy and want to be a girl.", "I'm a boy and like boys.", "I'm a boy and like girls.", etc. And I wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "I'm a Christian.", "I'm a Muslim.", etc. And worse, I wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "And Jesus was the Son of God.", "There is no God.", etc. It is not the place of the school. So again, you've highlighted my point. Are you going to keeping supporting my argument?

I say children can be exposed to the social ideas and beliefs of their classmates and learn about their neighbors from their contemporaries (in age bracket etc.,) without mandating or encouraging the State’s indoctrination religion or crossing the establishment clause, obviously you feel differently.
I think it is a commendable community activity that we foster the exchange of ideas and beliefs but not in the classroom. The classroom is a place a child is required to be and should not be alienated because their personal beliefs require them to leave in order to not be exposed to information that shouldn't be on the curriculum in the first place. A voluntary activity that encouraged that kind of exchange would be something I would absolutely support and encourage my family to attend. I don't think it would be inappropriate to hold an afterschool activity for that purpose so long as it gave equal weight to all beliefs in the community and not weighted based on participation (since this would again give unequal time to the majority).

Do you encourage the children to discuss their sexuality in class? I don't think you do.

...
I also don't think it's inappropriate to expose children to the fact that some children have divorced parents and some children have same-sex parents. I don't think it's their place to put value on those families one way or the other. I certainly don't think it's their place to explore sexuality and particularly I don't think it's their place to explore the sexuality of the children in the classroom or of their parents. Your activity does exactly that. It explores the personal beliefs of those children and of their parents. I would not encourage an activity where children stood up and said, "My parents are divorced.", "My parents are married.", "I have two mommies.", "My grandmother raises me because my father shot my mother then himself.", "My mommy says my daddy maspurdetes too much." or whatever. I also wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "I'm a boy and want to be a girl.", "I'm a boy and like boys.", "I'm a boy and like girls.", etc. And I wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "I'm a Christian.", "I'm a Muslim.", etc. And worse, I wouldn't encourage an activity that says, "And Jesus was the Son of God.", "There is no God.", etc. It is not the place of the school. So again, you've highlighted my point. Are you going to keeping supporting my argument?
...

Obviously then, we have to outlaw all recesses at all schools immediately?

Nah, your idea is to pretend that it isn't already happening, but that's not the case. They WILL do it on their own, children already do it on their own, and we only have to decide if it's better that they do it without supervision or to reduce the harm and buffer the extremes of potential bullying and taunting, we do it in the class room and encourage it be learned in as an accepting way as is possible.

Learning beliefs and social customs and how individual families are the same and different is all a part of quality education, IMO.

Obviously then, we have to outlaw all recesses at all schools immediately?

Uh-huh. You're exaggeration of the problem doesn't help your case. You clearly want them to explore certain personal realms and not others while I am consistent on the subject. You compared sexuality and religion as if they were interchangeable and it severely damages your argument.

Nah, your idea is to pretend that it isn't already happening, but that's not the case. They WILL do it on their own, children already do it on their own, and we only have to decide if it's better that they do it without supervision or to reduce the harm and buffer the extremes of potential bullying and taunting, we do it in the class room and encourage it be learned in as an accepting way as is possible.

Learning beliefs and social customs and how individual families are the same and different is all a part of quality education, IMO.

No, we have to decide that children are permitted to explore these ideas on their own and it is not the job of the school to supervise the exchange of religious ideas. It is not the job of the school to supervise the personal relationships of the children that occur and develop outside of the classroom. I'm not pretending like it isn't happening. I'm pretending that lots of things go on outside the classroom that should be discouraged in the classroom. Teenagers are having sex outside the classroom (since you seem to like to exaggerate to make a point). To not allow them to make out in class is to pretend like it isn't happening? Or perhaps classrooms are not an appropriate place to make out, no?

Again, do you think children should be encouraged to discuss their personal sexualities and to 'encourage it be learned in as accepting way as possible"?

(By the way, while we are disagreeing, ahem aren't we always, I really like these kinds of discussions. I appreciate that you are attacking MY IDEAS. I hope we can continue to discuss in this manner in the future.)

... Teenagers are having sex outside the classroom (since you seem to like to exaggerate to make a point). To not allow them to make out in class is to pretend like it isn't happening? Or perhaps classrooms are not an appropriate place to make out, no?

Teenagers are having sex, but that's the argument we are using for demanding high quality and all inclusive sexual education, your example would apply if I said kids should be able to ‘worship’ in class. Quality education and exposure to religious and family beliefs etc., should be no different than quality sex-education, IMO. Touchy subjects to some parents, but no less important to quality education.

Again, do you think children should be encouraged to discuss their personal sexualities and to 'encourage it be learned in as accepting way as possible"?
...

I think that battle is already being waged. Depending on what state you are looking at anyway, I think we aren't doing too badly in that regard overall, not for the lack of innovative ideas anyway. Teaching real sexual education today WHILE advocating and promoting reasons for abstinence, for example, I have no problem with that. I think some of those programs get attacked simply because they use the word abstinence, and I defend them when they are attacked simply because they use that word. There are high-quality sexual education courses that also promote abstinence, despite the far-left’s attempt to ridicule them for using the word.

Teenagers are having sex, but that's the argument we are using for demanding high quality and all inclusive sexual education, your example would apply if I said kids should be able to ‘worship’ in class. Quality education and exposure to religious and family beliefs etc., should be no different than quality sex-education, IMO. Touchy subjects to some parents, but no less important to quality education.

Sex is a natural part of biology and human sexuality is natural part of human biology. Sex education is not only useful because children are having sex. Sex, sexuality, the potential for STD's, menstruation, birth control, etc. are things everyone must deal with in their life, unlike specific religions. Their is no governmental interest in the effect of a lack of education about Christianity, but there is a clear governmental interest in educating children about means of birth control, for example.

I think that battle is already being waged. Depending on what state you are looking at anyway, I think we aren't doing too badly in that regard overall, not for the lack of innovative ideas anyway. Teaching real sexual education today WHILE advocating and promoting reasons for abstinence, for example, I have no problem with that. I think some of those programs get attacked simply because they use the word abstinence, and I defend them when they are attacked simply because they use that word. There are high-quality sexual education courses that also promote abstinence, despite the far-left’s attempt to ridicule them for using the word.
That's not the point. High quality sexual education does not require exploring the individual sexualities of the class.

Do you support a teacher coming in one morning and saying, "today class, I would like each of you to stand up and talk about your sexuality."? That would be the same as walking in and requesting that students read a passage that speaks to their religious beliefs. You're not answering the question I've asked.

For the record, you made the they're doing it anyway argument, not me. The point is that sexual education isn't bringing the sex into the classroom (what 'they're doing anyway') it's bringing a general discussion about sex into the classroom. A general discussion about religion is not forbidden in classrooms. It is possible to have a world religions class available in high schools. It is possible to have a philosophy class in classrooms. It is possible to touch on sexuality or sexual education or religions when major literary works require it.

The 'they're doing it anyway' argument is not an argument to encourage it or to allow it in the classroom but to give children a general foundation that allows them to 'do it' from a position of education. A world religions class would accomplish that. An exploration of the personal beliefs of each student would not.

Bhutan, Saudi Arabia, Iran...

Bhutan, Saudi Arabia, Iran...

Not sure what you're replying to.

Not sure what you're replying to.
Just thinking out loud.

And Jesus answered them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

All I'm saying is, if He's in favor of the separation of church and state...

All I'm saying is, if He's in favor of the separation of church and state...

Actually, that wasn't really the point of that passage. The point was one does not have to choose one or the other to be loyal to.

I do, however, hold that Jesus was in favor of the seperation of Church and State. He believed in the purity of a religious relationship that was direct. He was clearly suspicious of men in power and I don't imagine he would like to hand the reigns of a religion that worships him over to such men.

And Jesus answered them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

All I'm saying is, if He's in favor of the separation of church and state...

some rather important context that you left out:

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?"

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked.

it's the parable of 'jesus, the tricky bastard'

as you know God isn't mentioned in the Constitiution, but yet where it says in the first admendment "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." But at the time of it being written was when almost every person inthe thirteen colonies was a Christian of some sort. The way i interpret it was that they do not make a law respecting any sort of Christian faith, but that's how i interpret it. But i still think that every one has a right to free religion, any more though it's beginning to be free of religion. these damn athesist ruining it for every one, just because they don't believe, but i pray that they will find God.

as you know God isn't mentioned in the Constitiution, but yet where it says in the first admendment "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." But at the time of it being written was when almost every person inthe thirteen colonies was a Christian of some sort. The way i interpret it was that they do not make a law respecting any sort of Christian faith, but that's how i interpret it. But i still think that every one has a right to free religion, any more though it's beginning to be free of religion. these damn athesist ruining it for every one, just because they don't believe, but i pray that they will find God.

Um, almost every single one was a Christian? You sure about it.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;"

Hmmm... Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

How about Franklin? Was he a Christian?

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."

How about this one?

"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."

You know who said that? Father of the Constitution, James Madison. Here's another by him.

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

How about John Adams?

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. "

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Um, almost every single one was a Christian? You sure about it.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;"

Hmmm... Treaty of Tripoli - 1797

That was already throughly debunked in this thread, why bring it up again? Finish the quote and explain the topic...

How about Franklin? Was he a Christian?

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."


Benjamin Franklin was no advocate of forbidding the speaking and mentioning of God in the public institutions and the government in the United States.

Throughout his life he was so, and the quote you showed of his was from his own biography when he was speaking about himself as a very young man. I think it might be a bit deceiving to quote that alone of his, since the Benjamin Franklin that America revers would be more than double, nearly triple his age from the time of your quote. Which one of us will not regret some thing in our teenage and young adulthood past after we have lived to the second half of our lives?

He also wrote many other things, I'll quote some from different periods in his life.

And now having pointed out that most excellent way of Charity, or Love to God, and our Neighbor, that Gospel Way of Pleasantness, that sure Path of Peace leading on to Glory, what remains but that we walk therein. We are called Christians, professing one faith, one Lord, one Baptism: Let us shew ourselves to be such, not in Word only, but in Deed and in Truth; whilst our Faith worketh by Love, and our Love by shewing Mercy to the Poor.”
~Benjamin Franklin (Dedicating a Hospital he helped to build - when he was in his middle age).

In a pamphlet titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, written for Europeans who were considering coming to America, Franklin made these observations:
Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.

Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.
And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country. ~Benjamin Franklin describing the population of America as he knew it to the French, when he was already old.

On June 28, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was deadlocked and embroiled in bitter controversy. Benjamin Franklin rose and made the following plea to the delegates:
In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. 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, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages ...

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. ~Benjamin Franklin just a few years before he would die.

Looks to me like Benjamin Franklin both believed in a Supreme Being AND believed that the Supreme Being should be worshiped AND thought that the United States Government should actively and publicly ask for divine guidance during the carrying out of it's Governmental affairs.



How about this one?

"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."

You know who said that? Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

In his manuscripts on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison wrote:

Christ's Divinity appears by St. John, chapter xx, 2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts iv, 33: 'And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'

And in a letter to a his friend William Bradford:

A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the annals of Heaven. reference to his own

James Madison, the unending defender of the concept of denying the US government from the ability to establish a religion of any kind, Christian Sect or even Christianity itself, for fear that a government that can ordain can ALSO retract... Of this, there is no doubt, I agree with it as well, he truly worried about it, that no established religion should be established by the government.

HOWEVER, the modern day people that try to wield Madison like a sledge hammer when they propose the idea that America's government should NOT even 'presuppose' the existence of the Supreme Being at all, fail to portray a fair picture of Madison because even he, even the very hero of their cause wrote and DID this when he was himself the very President with the power:

A Proclamation.

By the President of the United States of America

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses have signified a request, that a day may be recommended, to be observed by the people of the United States, with religious solemnity, as a day of public humiliation and prayer: and

Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed, to offer, at one and the same time, their common vows and adorations to Almighty God, on the solemn occasion produced by the war, in which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign Power to involve these United States;

I do therefore recommend a convenient day to be set apart, for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe, and the Benefactor of Mankind. The public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking his merciful forgiveness, and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment; and, especially, of offering fervent supplications, that, in the present season of calamity and war, He would take the American people under His peculiar care and protection; that He would guide their public councils, animate their patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord, and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion, to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace.

Given at Washington, the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812
~James Madison

A Proclamation.

By the President of the United States of America

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses have signified a request, that a day may be recommended, to be observed by the people of the United States, with religious solemnity, as a day of public humiliation and prayer: and

Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed, to offer, at one and the same time, their common vows and adorations to Almighty God, on the solemn occasion produced by the war, in which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign Power to involve these United States;

I do therefore recommend a convenient day to be set apart, for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe, and the Benefactor of Mankind. The public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking his merciful forgiveness, and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment; and, especially, of offering fervent supplications, that, in the present season of calamity and war, He would take the American people under His peculiar care and protection; that He would guide their public councils, animate their patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord, and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion, to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace.

Given at Washington, the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812
~James Madison

Ahhh that quote. If you look into Madison and latter part of his life, he went crazy about how this was misued.

Madison never endorsed the concept of goverment and religion.

As the quote in my sig says:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"
-- James Madison

"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--." ~John Adams, October 11, 1798
Second President [1797-1801]

That was already throughly debunked in this thread, why bring it up again? Finish the quote and explain the topic...

Debunked? Where? It's the Treaty of Tripoli. I quoted where it was from and it was a point that was agreed upon by the first congress and the first president of the United States. You know those guys that founded the nation. I'm almost positive they would know. Debunked... ha. "I don't like that quote so I declare it debunked." The rest of the quote only says why the FACT that this country was not founded on Christianity is pertinent.

Benjamin Franklin was no advocate of forbidding the speaking and mentioning of God in the public institutions and the government in the United States.

Who's forbidding it? No one. We were talking about teaching religions in schools which didn't apply at the time because schools are state institutions and the first amendment only applied federally. We are talking about intertwining the existence of God into government. We are talking about legislation not including God. That's not the same as any of us advocating denying individuals even governmental individuals the right to have their own personal beliefs.

Throughout his life he was so, and the quote you showed if his was from his own biography when he was speaking about himself as a very young man. I think it might be a bit deceiving to quote that alone of his, since the Benjamin Franklin that America revers would be more than double, nearly triple his age from the time of your quote. Which one of us will not regret some thing in our teenage and young adulthood past after we have lived to the second half of our lives?

And now having pointed out that most excellent way of Charity, or Love to God, and our Neighbor, that Gospel Way of Pleasantness, that sure Path of Peace leading on to Glory, what remains but that we walk therein. We are called Christians, professing one faith, one Lord, one Baptism: Let us shew ourselves to be such, not in Word only, but in Deed and in Truth; whilst our Faith worketh by Love, and our Love by shewing Mercy to the Poor.”
~Benjamin Franklin (Dedicating a Hospital helped to build when he was in his middle age.

How old was when he wrote this? "If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." Any guesses? I'll give you a hint. He wasn't 22.

How about this one?

To Richard Price (a Friend, or Quaker), 9 October 1780 (B 8:153-4):
I am fully of your opinion respecting religious tests; but, though the people of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that people were 100 years ago, we must allow they have gone great lengths in liberality of sentiment on religious subjects; and we may hope for greater degrees of perfection, when their constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure religion itself, as the emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

How old was he in 1780? 73 or 74, maybe? Wasn't he was calling for the seperation of Church and State and suggesting that looking to intertwine itself in civil matters is "a sign, I apprehend of [a religion] being a bad one"?

How about this one? How was in he in the following?

To Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790 (B 12:185-6):
You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his 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; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.

Yup, sounds like a Christian to me. Do Christians ordinarily have "doubt as to [Christ's] divinity"?

In a pamphlet titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, written for Europeans who were considering coming to America, Franklin made these observations:
Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.

Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.
And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country.

~Benjamin Franklin describing the population of America as he knew it to the French, when he was already old.

I love this one. It makes my point. I didn't say he was an Atheist. He believed in God but not Christ as the Savior. He wasn't a Christian which was the point I addressed. The fact that he spoke of his religion has nothing to do with the seperation of Church and State, so this applies to neither the thread nor the poster I was replying to.

On June 28, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was deadlocked and embroiled in bitter controversy. Benjamin Franklin rose and made the following plea to the delegates:
In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.
To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. 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, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages ...
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

~Benjamin Franklin just a few years before he would die.

Looks to me like Benjamin Franklin both believe in a Supreme Being, believe the Supreme Being should be worshiped AND thought that the United States Government should actively and publicly ask for divine guidance during the carrying out of our governmental affairs.

Doesn't make him a Christian, so your post is disingenuous. As far as seperation of Church and State embodied in the first amendment, was the first amendment written at this time? When was it ratified? Whoops.

HOWEVER, the modern day people that try to wield Madison like a sledge hammer when they propose the idea that America's government should NOT even 'presuppose' the existence of the Supreme Being at all, fail to portray a fair picture of Madison because even he, even the very hero of their cause wrote and DID this when he was himself the very President with the power:

The US Government shouldn't presuppose a Supreme Being because to do so is to endorse some religions over others. It places monotheism over multitheism and atheism, all religious beliefs that are to be respected equally.

But since you seem to think otherwise here's a couple -

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

Hmmmm... I guess he must have come to his senses. What was it you said? "Which one of us will not regret some thing in our teenage and young adulthood past after we have lived to the second half of our lives?" Looks like Madison grew up.

How about something completely not biased?

"We cannot know what the founders would have thought about the "values issues" that are touchstones for cultural conservatives today—abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, the right to die—but we certainly can infer what Jefferson would have thought about claims that the Ten Commandments and the Bible are the foundation of American law. The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?"
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/original_intent.html

Say what you will about the source (and you will), what do you think of the actual words in the article?

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school. The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples. The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.

"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--." ~John Adams, October 11, 1798
Second President [1797-1801]

Yeah, unfortunately Adams didn't have much faith in people. He actually didn't feel that this applied to thinkers like himself and Franklin and whatnot. At least that was his belief at the time. He wanted to use religion to control the masses (a la "the opiate of the masses"). This hardly helps your point.

However for better exploration of what his more general beliefs were lets look at the following -

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Hmmm... he seems to have believed that government was formed without 'influence of Heaven'. The government was contrived by use of reason and senses. Not quite in support of your claims, now is it?

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school. The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples. The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.

Wow, where does one start with this one? I would recommend reading the thread. The country is in no way based on Christian theology. Many of the founders were not Christians. They often claimed that the US was not Christian. Greenlander is posing, quite well I'll add, that they believed in testifying to God in government documents, but virtually no documents included Christ and some of them were quite hostile towards Christians.

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school. The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples. The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.

Actually the arguement on the whole creationism/ID debate is wheter or not it should be taught in a science class not in a general sense of being taught in schools.

Debunked? Where? It's the Treaty of Tripoli. I quoted where it was from and it was a point that was agreed upon by the first congress and the first president of the United States. You know those guys that founded the nation. I'm almost positive they would know. Debunked... ha. "I don't like that quote so I declare it debunked." The rest of the quote only says why the FACT that this country was not founded on Christianity is pertinent.

Debunked because it was shown earlier that it is a much longer sentence and where you ended it is not the end of the sentence AND that the sentence was entirely an explanation of why the US would NOT attack them simply because they were Muslims AND they wanted the pirates to know that we would honor the treaty. Also, because it was well known that the pirates did not feel obliged to honor treaties with non-Muslims, we were trying to tell them that we were not europeans under rule of a church order. It didn't work anyway. The war with them occurred shortly thereafter and your quote is of a single line of a longer sentence in a paragraph unrelated to the topic in which you use it. Thus, your use of it in this topic is debunked.


Who's forbidding it? No one. We were talking about teaching religions in schools which didn't apply at the time because schools are state institutions and the first amendment only applied federally. We are talking about intertwining the existence of God into government. We are talking about legislation not including God. That's not the same as any of us advocating denying individuals even governmental individuals the right to have their own personal beliefs.

Yes you are, the last part there... You DO want to deny the official capacity to perform institutional prayer of thanksgiving or for guidance, for example. I'm not talking about the private right of the officials themselves, I AM talking about the official capacity of the institution’s themselves to be able to participate in one (for example). Thus, Your argument is forbidding it, not no one, your position is.

*snipped Benjamin Franklin stuff, saying he is not a "Christian* by Jacobias definition of what a Christian is*

...Yup, sounds like a Christian to me. Do Christians ordinarily have "doubt as to [Christ's] divinity"?

...I didn't say he was an Atheist. He believed in God but not Christ as the Savior. He wasn't a Christian which was the point I addressed. The fact that he spoke of his religion has nothing to do with the seperation of Church and State, so this applies to neither the thread nor the poster I was replying to.

I was NOT trying to show BF to be a Christian. I was proving that he did think that the US could 'presuppose’ the existence of a Supreme Being in it's institutions. And I proved that he acted so himself and advocated for it. Franklin being, or not being, a 'Christian' is irrelevant. It is relevant to the first amendment discussion because he was a part of the group that wrote it and he said my quote DURING the creation of the Constitution FOR the creation of the Constitution. Your wanting to call Madison the 'father of the constitution' is a name alone, it is not an actuality in and of itself. The document was drafted by Madison and then hacked and hashed and whacked into a new form by the commission... It was written by a group effort that Franklin was a part of when he said that quote of mine, it is extremely relevant.


The US Government shouldn't presuppose a Supreme Being because to do so is to endorse some religions over others. It places monotheism over multitheism and atheism, all religious beliefs that are to be respected equally.

You'll have to take that up and argue with the SCOTUS then, not me. Because that's where I got the saying from. America IS a nation of religious people that in it's institutions have presupposed the existence of a Supreme Being, and always have. I didn't write that. The SCOTUS has put that in several rulings, reciting it over and over again over the decades, several of which have been quoted and linked to in this thread, you couldn’t have missed them, you must just be ignoring them and pretending they weren’t in the SCOTUS findings (edit: Or perhaps you did and just think they should be overturned).

Debunked because it was shown earlier that it is a much longer sentence and where you ended it is not the end of the sentence AND that the sentence was entirely an explanation of why the US would NOT attack them simply because they were Muslims AND they wanted the pirates to know that we would honor the treaty. Also, because it was well known that the pirates did not feel obliged to honor treaties with non-Muslims, we were trying to tell them that we were not europeans under rule of a church order. It didn't work anyway. The war with them occurred shortly thereafter and your quote is of a single line of a longer sentence in a paragraph unrelated to the topic in which you use it. Thus, your use of it in this topic is debunked.

The point of the part of the sentence (no one was hiding that it was a fragment notice that ever quote included the semicolon) meant exactly what it says. In the context of the treaty it was absolutely intended to make them understand that it wasn't Christians against Muslims because the US is not a Christian nation. It says so in those exact words. In order to read it differently one has to pretend it doesn't have that part of the sentence in in at all. It is absolutely related to the topic because it made the exact point that we are not a Christian nation only four years after the writing of the Constitution. It's hard to argue that we changed from a Christian nation to a non-Christian nation in four years. Because you pretend like it doesn't say what it explicitly does say doesn't change it's meaning or make it 'debunked'.

Here is the entirety.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It makes several points, thus the semicolons.

1. The US is not founded on the Christian religion.
2. The US has nothing against Muslims in general.
3. The US has never entered into a war with any Muslim nation.

And because of those reasons there are no religious reasons for there to be conflict between the nations. However, the context doesn't change the fact that the treaty declares that those three points are, in fact, true. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore the text.


Yes you are, the last part there... You DO want to deny the official capacity to perform institutional prayer of thanksgiving or for guidance, for example. I'm not talking about the private right of the officials themselves, I AM talking about the official capacity of the institution’s themselves to be able to participate in one (for example).

Institutions don't pray. People pray and force it to become part of the institution. Unfortunately, institutional prayer inhibits the free exercise of those who are not a part of those that follow the belief the prayer recognizes. If law allows the practice it is respecting certain relgions but not all religions. For example, my religion specifically requires that we pray in private (we like to listen to the words of Jesus that way).

Thus, Your argument is forbidding it, not no one, your position is.

That's not a sentence, but I get your point. You're right. I'm denying rights to government institutions. I'm evil that way. Fortunately, government institutions don't have freedom of religion. The individuals in the government are absolutely free to practice their religion, even encouraged, so long as they don't exploit their government position to promote that religion.

I was NOT trying to show BF to be a Christian. I was proving that he did think that the US could 'presuppose’ the existence of a Supreme Being in it's institutions. And I proved that he acted so himself and advocated for it. Franklin being, or not being, a 'Christian' is irrelevant. It is relevant to the first amendment discussion because he was a part of the group that wrote it and he said my quote DURING the creation of the Constitution FOR the creation of the Constitution. Your wanting to call Madison the 'father of the constitution' is a name alone, it is not an actuality in and of itself. The document was drafted by Madison and then hacked and hashed and whacked into a new form by the commission... It was written by a group effort that Franklin was a part of when he said that quote of mine, it is extremely relevant.

I was talking about him not being a Christian in a reply to someone who said everyone at the time was Christian. You jumped on that reply to and quoted him to argue against me. So his being or not being a Christian is totally the point.

And I think it's hilarious that it's 'by Jocabia's definition' except he explicitly denied that Christ was divine. He like his philosophies but did not worship him. He believed in God. He believed God was divine. He worshiped him. That does not make him Christian.

What you cut out is that he specifically said that religions that expect civil support are bad religions. I tend to agree. Hardly advocating the entwining of religion and government. Also, a point of fact that the first amendment was not ratified till after Franklin died, so his actions hardly outline its effect.

You'll have to take that up and argue with the SCOTUS then, not me. Because that's where I got the saying from. America IS a nation of religious people that in it's institutions have presupposed the existence of a Supreme Being, and always have. I didn't write that. The SCOTUS has put that in several rulings, reciting it over and over again over the decades, several of which have been quoted and linked to in this thread, you couldn’t have missed them, you must just be ignoring them and pretending they weren’t in the SCOTUS findings (edit: Or perhaps you did and just think they should be overturned).

The SCOTUS didn't write it, a justice did. The same justice that introduced the lemon test you loudly protest. He expressed his opinion, but in terms of law he was a complete advocate of the seperation of Church and State. You pretend like every word the Justice says amounts to encasing it in law. Burger's opinions were very clear as to the seperation of Church and State. Those opinions WERE the opinion of the court.

Either way, to presuppose a Supreme Being is to not equally respect religions that do not recognize a Supreme Being, but that's your point, isn't it? You don't advocate freedom of religion. You advocate freedom of your religion.

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school. The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples.
Oh good lord, I've never seen this ludicrous idea before!! What a joke! The functions of government have to do with social need and reality, not religion! The system of checks and balances between the three functions came from the Pagan Roman Republic : For President, Congress and Supreme Court, read Consuls, Senate and Praetors.

The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.
Obviously there is a basis; otherwise the nations highest judges wouldn't be doing it (it that is, indeed, what they are doing).

This is all part of the nature of human society and history. Times and circumstances change, and fundamental doctrines and texts are interpretted accordingly. Nobody can expect a collection of eighteenth-century men to have fully anticipated the twenty-first century world, and system which tries to cast the attitudes of one generation in stone for all time will stagnate and eventually collapse under the weight of its own anachronisms.

snip.
Thanks for keeping this thread alive with some intelligence.

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school. The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples. The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.


OK. If it's a fact, I assume you have evidence? Go ahead. BTW misquotes and words out of context don't count.

Also, you're not seriously claiming the separation of powers is based on the Trinity, are you? I'd love to see you prove that one.

OK. If it's a fact, I assume you have evidence? Go ahead. BTW misquotes and words out of context don't count.

Also, you're not seriously claiming the separation of powers is based on the Trinity, are you? I'd love to see you prove that one.
As much as I despise Christian answer magicing like such, I would love to see that proved.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive with some intelligence.

No need to get insulting. ;)

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school.


Well to a point you are correct. There is no reason why creationism can't be taught in a comparative religions class.

If you mean science, well it's not science.


The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology.

*shock* The tribes were Christians?

Please don't tell me you are talking about those idiot pilgrims and the myths that surrounds them.


Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples.


Whoa, you're not making a trinity comparison here are you?

The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.

Actually, the 1st amendment has been iterpreted as it was designed. The goverment shall be religious neutral and you don't have to pass a religous test. In simple words, Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion.

No need to get insulting. ;)
*pats your back, nods sagely*

The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology.

US citizens should really make up their mind. Is the USA "the land of the free" or "the land of the free Christians" ?

US citizens should really make up their mind. Is the USA "the land of the free" or "the land of the free Christians" ?
If you ask a sensible citizen they'll tell you the truth that it is the former.

If you ask a sensible citizen they'll tell you the truth that it is the former.


"Sensilbe citizen" = "anyone who agrees with me".

"Sensilbe citizen" = "anyone who agrees with me".
= Anyone who pays attention.

I have paid attention. I come to a different conclusion than you. Who decided you got to be the final word on our constitution? Have you actually researched this, as I have, or are you just parroting what some preacher told you to believe? (and don't even think of accusing me of claiming I'm irrefutably right. This is what I believe. You are perfectly free to disagree, but don't be so arrogant as to say that anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition wrong. Prove it.)

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

I have paid attention. I come to a different conclusion than you. Who decided you got to be the final word on our constitution? Have you actually researched this, as I have, or are you just parroting what some preacher told you to believe?
I am for seperation of church and state... Former... not Latter.

I am for seperation of church and state... Former... not Latter.


Clarify,please. You are for what, exactly?

Clarify,please. You are for what, exactly?
Freedom of and from religion. Land of the free. Not land of the Christian free.

Freedom of and from religion. Land of the free. Not land of the Christian free.


OK, I'm confused. your earler post seemed to advocate the opposite. Did I simply misread it?

OK, I'm confused. your earler post seemed to advocate the opposite. Did I simply misread it?
yup

OK, I apologize. We actually agree.

OK, I apologize. We actually agree.
LET THE DEBATE RAGE ON!!


anyone?

Here's the answer to that damned question. Pulled it from this very site, but the work's not mine(and I have no idea who's it is). But read it.

"Our founding fathers were devout Christians who based this nation on the Bible? Oh my. Well, lets get some opinions from the Founding Fathers themselves, eh? Arranging in alphabetical order. Why? Because I like it.

Lets start with John Adams, one of my favorites.
John Adams (1735-1826)
Second President of the United States (1797-1801)

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)


Alright, so Jonny is a bit hard-core. I'm sure friendly Mr. Franklin will be the very opitime of a good Christian!

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
American public official, writer, scientist, and printer who played a major part in the American Revolution

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Benjamin Franklin (attributed: source unknown)

Um...alright. Thomas Jefferson will prove the US is a Christian nation!

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The third President of the United States (1801-1809)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Richard Rush, 1813

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

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. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Damn it Tommy, shut up! You're not helping me prove to these nice people that Christianity was built into our nation by the Founding Fathers! In fact, you're being down-right hostile towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular!

I can only hope that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, can save us!
After all, it is that document that is the supreme law!

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 in blood for centuries.
-- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Thats not a good start, James....

I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel.
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16

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; in 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 allies.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
-- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
-- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
-- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W. Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

And smacking down a faith-based initiative! How dare you!


Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
-- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom. Also in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.

Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can ot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
-- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief


AAAAAHHHH!!! Washington, you are my only hope!

George Washington (1732-1799)
The first President of the United States (1789-1797)

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.
-- George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress, expressing opposition to a congressional plan to appoint brigade chaplains in the Continental Army (1777), quoted from a letter to Cliff Walker from Doug Harper (2002) ††

Well. Screw me. I guess the Founding Fathers weren't religious nuts. How about that."


Check and Mate.

I believe some one knows what they're talking about. ;)

I think the argument that the Constitution has roots in Biblical law from this:

Constitutional law was based on British law, which in turn had (to a degree) its roots in Vatican law. Which in turn was based on the Bible.

Constitutional law was composed of many forces, the enlightenment for instance, the scholarly works of Montesquieu, Locke, Alexis De Tocqueville and even Hobbes, the views of the founding fathers, the nature of American society and God knows what else.

I should also point out that Britain has been a protestant nation since the reformation in the mid 16th century.

Too late. (BTW: flamebait my butt :rolleyes: you just don't like being wrong and called on it)



Yes you did, look at the discussion in this thread, look are your post in it. Walla, you're wrong, you did say it, then you were called on it, then you tried to change the topic...



This is just you trying to pretend like you didn't slam face first into the dirt with your foot squarely in your mouth.

Of course, now that you've written it, you could pass it around to the other people in this thread to explain to them why they are allowed to think about separation of church and state in it's modern understanding without trying to pretend that the founding fathers agree with them. Because the original intent is now irrelevant, and the SCOTUS will decide how far separation needs to be, it's quite vague you know, more than one modern day interpretation is valid...
Just to save time of arguing around in the sophomoric, petty fashion you indulge:

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Article 11:

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-ratified by CONGRESS, signed by John Adams, Pres. of U.S.

and also to save a little time/angle ...

MYTH - THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
Those who make this assertion confuse the founding of the United States as a
political unit with the settlement of North America. It is true that a
number of the first Europeans to arrive on our shores were religious
dissenters who sought freedom to worship. Many of these people believed they
were establishing some type of Christian utopia, but as a rule they did not
believe in religious liberty. Most of the early colonies were theocracies
where only those who worshiped according to state orthodoxy were welcome.
Following the American Revolution, political leaders began to construct the
new U.S. government. Although a minority clung to European notions of
church-state union, a general consensus emerged that the new country should
steer clear of officially established religion. States with
government-favored religions gradually began moving toward separation also.
Massachusetts, the last state to maintain an official religion,
disestablished its state church in 1833.
During the Constitutional Convention, a minority faction favored some
recognition of Christianity in the Constitution. In a report to Maryland
lawmakers, delegate Luther Martin asserted that "in a Christian country, it
would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors
of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." His views were
rejected, and the Constitution was adopted as a secular document.
Incidentally, Ben Franklin did indeed urge the delegates of the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 to open their sessions with morning
prayers, as many Religious Right activists point out. However, the
Convention, which had been meeting for a month without invocational prayers,
did not concur. The Convention's records show that the delegates voted to
adjourn rather than debate the issue. The matter was not brought up again
when the Convention reconvened.
Further proof that the founders did not intend for the government to be
Christian is found in the Treaty of Tripoli, a trade agreement signed
between the United States and the Muslim region of north Africa in 1797
after negotiations under George Washington. The document, which was approved
by the Senate under John Adams, states flatly, "[T]he Government of the
United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."
(The phrase was removed eight years later when the treaty was renegotiated.)
The framers wrote the Constitution as a secular document not because they
were hostile to Christianity but because they did not want to imply that the
new federal government would have any authority to meddle in religion.
MYTH - THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN
NATION.
In the 1892 Supreme Court case Holy Trinity Church v. United States Justice
David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Brewer's statement
occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's
personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that is legally
binding precedent.
Historians debate what Brewer meant by the statement, some claiming that he
only intended to acknowledge that Christianity has always been a dominant
force in American life. As Americans United Legal Counsel Steven Green
points out, five years after the Trinity ruling, Brewer himself seemed to
step a way from it in a case dealing with legalized prostitution in New
Orleans.
Green, who is working on a doctorate in church-state history, said the New
Orleans case arose when a Methodist church sought an injunction to bar
implementation of a city ordinance allowing prostitution in one zone in the
city. The Methodists argued the measure would "destroy the morals, peace and
good order of the neighborhood."
Citing the Trinity decision, church officials insisted that the ordinance
encouraged prostitution, an activity inconsistent with Christianity "which
the Supreme Court of the United States says is the foundation of our
government and the civilization which it has produced...."
Writing for a unanimous court, Brewer completely ignored the church's
religious argument and upheld the New Orleans law. Brewer's bypass suggests
that he did not mean to assert in the Trinity case that the United States
should enforce Christianity through its laws.
In any case, the Trinity decision is a legal anomaly that has been cited by
the court only once since then. And obviously the opinion of one obscure
Supreme Court justice does not amount to an official decree that the United
States is a Christian nation. If a Christian republic had been the goal of
the framers, that sentiment would have been included in the Constitution.
MYTH - THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S RELIGION CLAUSES WERE INTENDED ONLY TO PREVENT
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL CHURCH.
If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had plenty
of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an
early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none
shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national
religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive
debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment
to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple
establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many
religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment is
found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted to
bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view held by today's fundamentalists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(An excellent review of the history of the First Amendment is also found in
Bernard Schwartz's 1990 book The New Right and the Constitution: Turning
Back the Legal Clock. The book also contains a thorough refutation of Chief
Justice William Rehnquist's church-state views.)
MYTH - THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO KEEP THE STATE FROM INTERFERING
WITH THE CHURCH, NOT TO BAR RELIGIOUS GROUPS FROM CO-OPTING THE GOVERNMENT.
Jefferson and Madison held an expansive view of the First Amendment, arguing
that church-state separation would protect both religion and government.
Madison specifically feared that a small group of powerful churches would
join together and seek establishment or special favors from the government.
To prevent this from happening, Madison spoke of the desirability of a
"multiplicity of sects" that would guard against government favoritism.
Jefferson and Madison did not see church-state separation as an "either-or"
proposition or argue that one institution needed greater protection than the
other. As historian Garry Wills points out in his 1990 book Under God,
Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of the state
to coerce belief. In his notes he argued that disestablishment would
strengthen religion, holding that it would "oblige its ministers to be
industrious [and] exemplary." The state likewise was degraded by an
established faith, Jefferson asserted, because establishment made it a
partner in a system based on bribery of religion.
Madison likewise argued that establishment was no friend to religion or the
state. He argued that civil society would be hindered by establishment,
saying that attempts to enforce religious belief by law would weaken
government. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison argued flatly
that "Religion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it."
-------------

MYTH - SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER AND BIBLE READING TOOK PLACE IN ALL PUBLIC
SCHOOLS BEFORE 1962.
Several state supreme courts had already removed government-sponsored school
prayer and Bible reading from public schools prior to 1962. The Illinois
Supreme Court, for example, declared mandatory public school religious
exercises unconstitutional in 1910. By the time of the Engel decision,
school-sponsored religious exercises were most common in Northeastern and
Southern states. Some Western and Midwestern states had already removed the
practices.
A 1960 survey by Americans United determined that only five states had
required Bible reading laws on the books. Twenty-five states had laws
authorizing "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had declared the
practice unconstitutional. (The remaining states had no laws on the
subject.) The trend was clearly running in favor of a voluntary phase out of
these practices.
-
MYTH - THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THAT SECULAR HUMANISM IS A RELIGION,
AND SECULAR HUMANISM IS THE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
In a footnote to the 1961 Supreme Court Torcaso v. Watkins decision Supreme
Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Among religions in this country which do
not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of
God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
The Torcaso case dealt with religious tests for public office; it had
nothing to do with public schools. The justice's comment is far from a
finding that humanism is being taught in the schools.
The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled repeatedly that public
schools may not establish "a religion of secularism." The courts have
decreed that public schools should be religiously neutral. Government
neutrality toward religion and hostility toward religion are not the same
thing. They are equal only in the view of Religious Right groups that label
as hostility any action by government that does not favor their beliefs.
Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who call themselves secular
humanists is very small. It is not possible that such a miniscule group
could take control of the entire public school system, which is highly
decentralized and controlled by local school boards. "Secular humanism" is a
bogey man the Religious Right uses to attack public education.
Americans United encourages members to debunk these myths whenever they
appear in local newspapers, magazines or other media. No one expects
anti-separationists to be won over by these arguments. But by exposing
readers in the general population to the facts, separationists can help
people learn about the origins of religious liberty.
Jefferson said it best: "To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of
darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education."
Reprinted from Church and State 1992.
------------

Thanks for caring. Now note the nature of the more-educated responses of the people you're attacking.

Just to save time of arguing around in the sophomoric, petty fashion you indulge:

---*snip gigantic copy and paste from some website that isn't even linked to with some extremely questionable historical claims*---

Thanks for caring. Now note the nature of the more-educated responses of the people you're attacking.

Sophomoric... and more educated responses of the people I'm attacking?!?!

:p :D :p Softmoronic would better be used to describe your post... Try linking to your copy and posted link next time :rolleyes:

But for your information, only on motion by Fisher Ames for the first time in the first Congress of the United States was the language of the religion clause in the 1st Amendment adopted as it appears in the text today.

Fisher Ames lived in Massachusetts from 1758 to 1808. He was a publicist and a statesman, as well as a judge and a Massachusetts representative to Congress. He is the primary author of the "First Amendment" to the United States Constitution – despite the fact that Madison’s Biographer wants to try and insist that we must ‘obviously conclude it is Madison’s work' is behind the scenes of Ames' version, the version adopted and used in the first amendment approved by the first Congress is by record quoted from Fisher Ames motion.

To better understand Fisher Ames let's look at what other things he thought, On September 20, 1789, Fisher Ames was quoted in Paladian Magazine, giving us a preview of the American education dilemma of today:

''We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. ''We're spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.''
The first amendment establishment clause author of the “Freedom of Religion” as it applies to public educating, would seem to disagree with the idea presented before us today with the modern day concept held by the left…

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

Sophomoric... and more educated responses of the people I'm attacking?!?!

:p :D :p Softmoronic would better be used to describe your post... Try linking to your copy and posted link next time :rolleyes:

But for your information, only on motion by Fisher Ames for the first time in the first Congress of the United States was the language of the religion clause in the 1st Amendment adopted as it appears in the text today.

Fisher Ames lived in Massachusetts from 1758 to 1808. He was a publicist and a statesman, as well as a judge and a Massachusetts representative to Congress. He is the primary author of the "First Amendment" to the United States Constitution – despite the fact that Madison’s Biographer wants to try and insist that we must ‘obviously conclude it is Madison’s work' is behind the scenes of Ames' version, the version adopted and used in the first amendment approved by the first Congress is by record quoted from Fisher Ames motion.

To better understand Fisher Ames let's look at what other things he thought, On September 20, 1789, Fisher Ames was quoted in Paladian Magazine, giving us a preview of the American education dilemma of today:

''We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. ''We're spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.''
The first amendment establishment clause author of the “Freedom of Religion” as it applies to public educating, would seem to disagree with the idea presented before us today with the modern day concept held by the left…

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

Not relevant. The first amendment did not apply to the states, and thus not to schools, at the time Ames was alive. His opinion on what should and should not be taught in schools had no bearing on an amendment that ONLY applied to the federal government AT THE TIME.

No matter how hard you try the opinions of the founding fathers on religion and school is not AT ALL related to the first amendment because without the fourteenth amendment they do not affect each other. It's clear that the bill of rights was only an attempt to limit the federal goverment but the fourteenth amendment changed the landscape. Thus there general opinions on seperation of Church and State are FAR more relevant.

You keep making this argument and you keep getting informed that the schools at the time did not fall under the first amendment and now they do and that has nothing to do with a reinterpretation of the first amendment and everything to do with the addition of the fourteenth amendment. (there, now I stated it three different ways. Hopefully, it won't be necessary to point it out again.)

snip

1. Cutting and pasting from other sources without attribution is bad form and poor argumentation.

2. The Founders also passed the Alien & Sedition Act -- should we use it as a guide for interpreting the rest of the First Amendment?

3. James Madison had more to do with the passage of the First Amendment than Ames. I've already pointed out Madison's views at length.

"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--." ~John Adams, October 11, 1798
Second President [1797-1801]

Adams did not equate a religious country with a country in which religion was promoted by the state.

He believed that seperation of Church and State would achieve the best for religion and government.

Actually, there IS no legal argument against teaching creationism in school.

The Supreme Court disagreed in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 US 578 (1987).


The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples.

1. Show me where a government seperated into three equal parts comes from Christian Theology.

2. Give me 2 more examples of Christian Theology found in the Constitution.

3. Explain the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm)(1796), Article 11:

[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ...

The fact also remains that the interpretation of the constitution has changed dramatically over the past 40 years, and there is no basis for the misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that we're seeing today.

Bullshit.

The Supreme Court has been enforcing separation of Church and State for over 200 years. Just a couple of key examples outside your 40 year window:

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Sophomoric... and more educated responses of the people I'm attacking?!?!

:p :D :p Softmoronic would better be used to describe your post... Try linking to your copy and posted link next time :rolleyes:

But for your information, only on motion by Fisher Ames for the first time in the first Congress of the United States was the language of the religion clause in the 1st Amendment adopted as it appears in the text today.

Fisher Ames lived in Massachusetts from 1758 to 1808. He was a publicist and a statesman, as well as a judge and a Massachusetts representative to Congress. He is the primary author of the "First Amendment" to the United States Constitution – despite the fact that Madison’s Biographer wants to try and insist that we must ‘obviously conclude it is Madison’s work' is behind the scenes of Ames' version, the version adopted and used in the first amendment approved by the first Congress is by record quoted from Fisher Ames motion.

To better understand Fisher Ames let's look at what other things he thought, On September 20, 1789, Fisher Ames was quoted in Paladian Magazine, giving us a preview of the American education dilemma of today:

''We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. ''We're spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.''
The first amendment establishment clause author of the “Freedom of Religion” as it applies to public educating, would seem to disagree with the idea presented before us today with the modern day concept held by the left…

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”
Oh yes turn my script around, very witty indeed.
"Your honor ... is like a dose of clap."
How 'bout you read the bottom line, whelp?
Or is that too hard for you? Deal with the subject matter and DIGEST it. Don't tell me how to suck you off.

1. Cutting and pasting from other sources without attribution is bad form and poor argumentation.

.
Ya know, it's kinda funny that "Greenlander" needs this kind of come-uppance.

Actually, you and Jocabia nailed this poster quite a few times.
'Snuff said.

The fact is that our country was based on Christian theology. Our system of government, having three equal parts is one of a hundred examples.
Uhm, so the judicial system is the father ... the legislative system is the son ... the executive is the *un*holy ghost?

3. Explain the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm)(1796), Article 11:

Hahahaha... TCT beating a dead horse. Didn’t want to recite ALL of the sentence from that treaty did ya?. :rolleyes:


The Supreme Court has been enforcing separation of Church and State for over 200 years. Just a couple of key examples outside your 40 year window:

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''


That's soooo funny you used that case.! :D We should revive that anti-polygamy case again today, with all these challenges against the right to maintain traditional marriage laws going on all over the place, THAT SCOTUS ruling would go a long way toward saying the US Government DOES have the right to dictate what is and what is not a legal marriage in law despite what any individual or group of individuals have with religious or lack of religious standing and opinion on the matter!

Thanks for the link! :p

Hahahaha... TCT beating a dead horse. Didn’t want to recite ALL of the sentence from that treaty did ya?. :rolleyes:

You keep saying that it doesn't change the meaning. Quoting all of the sentence obscures the meaning, but it does not change it. The purpose of that clause was obvious and is not changed by why it was placed in the treaty. I notice that every time someone points this out to you, you ignore it. I'll post it again. You can scream at the facts all you want but even two hundred years ago the founding fathers declared this nation was NOT founded on Christianity.

The point of the part of the sentence (no one was hiding that it was a fragment notice that ever quote included the semicolon) meant exactly what it says. In the context of the treaty it was absolutely intended to make them understand that it wasn't Christians against Muslims because the US is not a Christian nation. It says so in those exact words. In order to read it differently one has to pretend it doesn't have that part of the sentence in in at all. It is absolutely related to the topic because it made the exact point that we are not a Christian nation only four years after the writing of the Constitution. It's hard to argue that we changed from a Christian nation to a non-Christian nation in four years. Because you pretend like it doesn't say what it explicitly does say doesn't change it's meaning or make it 'debunked'.

Here is the entirety.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It makes several points, thus the semicolons.

1. The US is not founded on the Christian religion.
2. The US has nothing against Muslims in general.
3. The US has never entered into a war with any Muslim nation.

And because of those reasons there are no religious reasons for there to be conflict between the nations. However, the context doesn't change the fact that the treaty declares that those three points are, in fact, true. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore the text.

The US was not founded on the Christian religion according to the founders. You've done nothing to show otherwise.

That's soooo funny you used that case.! :D We should revive that anti-polygamy case again today, with all these challenges against the right to maintain traditional marriage laws going on all over the place, THAT SCOTUS ruling would go a long way toward saying the US Government DOES have the right to dictate what is and what is not a legal marriage in law despite what any individual or group of individuals have with religious or lack of religious standing and opinion on the matter!

Thanks for the link! :p

He cited the case because a poster claimed that the current views on seperation of Church and State are new and there is no wall. The poster claims it was an invention of the last forty years. The evidence goes against the poster. You keep trying to take these posts out of context but like any conversation, context is very important.