Tawnos
Regular Member
Not collecting stamps is just as much a hobby as any other. Hurr.
I can't quit this thread, halp!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Teacher punishes student for saying "bless you"
- Thread starter Large Caliber Kick
- Start date
Not collecting stamps is just as much a hobby as any other. Hurr.
I can't quit this thread, halp!
georg jetson
Regular Member
All of this is completely irrelevant to the original point. We're discussing the law. Show me the law that discusses a pagan idol and then we'll apply a common definition to it if it's not defined in the statutes.
I'll back up anything I post. How do you think I feel meandering through your pointless trivia.
frommycolddeadhands seems to have his head on straight. I'm sure he can handle things. I certainly can't force anyone into dialogue. However, if I see you get off point, I'll be there to "help" you back.
BTW - I asked to respond to a simple question. You didn't respond because you can't. Your position on this matter is unconstitutional. Good luck trying to show otherwise.
Answer the question... "who gets to decide what "is" and "is not" religious?
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
No you can't... and that's because some things here offend your belief system(religion). I certainly don't intend to do that. I think we can have honest discussion without hurting each other's feelings. If you posted useful, well thought out ideas as opposed to sarcasm, we might actually exchange an idea or two. I know you can do it!!! Your smart like that...
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
If you had historical perspective whatsoever, you would understand the purpose of the ambiguity of the word "religion" in the first amendment, and why it is important to keep religious ideology out of the courtroom, out of the fed, and out of local government.
I don't know that anybody said that the placement of the Ten Commandments is "illegal". That certainly has not been my argument. My argument is that it is a government displayed preference towards Judeo-Christian faith. Were I a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc., there would of course be a meaningful amount of trepidation on my behalf to enter such a courtroom. In fact, you have created this laughable straw-man of an argument, and directed it towards me. Creating this wanton supposition that I specified somewhere that the Ten Commandments being in front of a courtroom is "illegal".
It is of course in terrible taste to display icons of a particular faith in government. You naturally disagree because you feel wherever you may find "testimony" on behalf of your faith that it is a "good thing".
I could post endless examples of how this is true as applied to Judeo-Christian faith as a whole, but you will deny the view exists. I have already posted one, but won't bother contributing more because you will continue to deny the reality that exists in front of you. There is a circular, self-destructive lack of critical thinking on your behalf.
Wow. You are such a wonderful Christian. Look at you expressing wonderful Christian values. You are the shining, stellar beacon of all that is wrong with Christianity. One of a thousand hypocritical singularities polluting the masses of devout followers. You are incapable of loving your neighbor, and place little value on behaving as Jesus would.
Thanks for proving a point in that regard.
You have posted nothing of value whatsoever because you can't even comprehend the argument itself. Nothing of any significance has been gained from you, and your argument that it is "not illegal" to place the Ten Commandments out in front of a courthouse has little bearing on the conversation about "perception" of the said items being in front of a courthouse. A piece of toiletpaper has more bearing on the actual conversation being had here than you do. Might I also add that this nonbeliever perceives you to be a terrible example of your professed faith and a poor ambassador to that end.
What would Jesus do? Not what you are doing. That is for sure.
Do you understand my failing Christian friend? I am not discussing "legality". I am discussing "public perception" of a single religions code of laws being displayed in a society of massively mixed religious background. I am discussing the subtle religous approach to giving government the "right to express religion". I am discussing the true necessity for separation of church and state.
This is why conversing with you is pointless. You lack critical thinking, and are a terrible ambassador for your faith. You haven't even perceived the argument we are having here and instead created this amazingly stupid straw-man attack.
Please learn to keep up.
georg jetson displays retardation. Check.
georg jetson avoids arguing actual point of contention. Check.
georg jetson creates Straw-Man and "defeats it". Check.
georg jetson declare "victory" and superiority over opponent whilst displaying his "good Christian values". Check.
All the markings of a religious idiot to be blunt.
You should read frommycoldeadhands response. Its funny how he is adressing points of perception and not hard legality. He is also composed and calm about it while being mostly inoffensive.
I wonder if that's because the argument has not been about hard legality since I posted?
I have difficulty swallowing the claim that he is "indifferent" to the presence of any religious totem or icon by the government, be it federal or local. There really are only two possible reasons for that:
#1. He is not as hardline devout as some Christians. (He will no doubt take this in offense.)
#2. He does not really mean what he is saying, advocating indifference because in this case it suits the faith driven cause by allowing icons of his faith to be displayed by a government entity.
Tawnos,
You reply has me busting up laughing. It is so hilarious how the simplest concepts of thought are lost on some people. It's like they have no capacity for rational thought or critical thinking.
"Yo bro, Atheism is a religion!"
You could get away with saying it's a "belief", but a "religion"?
I seriously laughed hard. Don't worship that God that you don't believe while reading the nonpresent book of nonbelieving whilst practicing your nonreligion. YOU DO THAT! :lol:
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
NO. That is NOT what the law says. What you are proposing is changing the law. It is BECAUSE the word "religion" is ambiguous that the law is constructed as it is in the several constitutions.
My bad... so you agree the judge in Alabama should be re assigned to the bench and the left alone as to what appears on the walls of his courtroom.
There we go being presumptuous again...
Taste is NOT the issue. This judge was removed from the bench. We're talking about a judge being removed from the bench for something that is NOT illegal. There's no place for this in a free republic.
Yes don't waste your time because it's irrelevant. We're speaking about the law and NOT how some religion may be biased over another. That would be silly.
More irrelevant blah blah...
Ok... ignoring the useless shtuff...
YES! My argument is that it is "NOT illegal" to place the Ten Commandments out in front of a courthouse... Yet a judge was removed from the bench for doing so. Go back and look at the post that brought me to this thread.
The "PERCEPTION of the said items being in front of a courthouse" is of no concern to government!! If you want to argue "perception" then you'll get no more from me. If you argue that the government can act on that perception then we'll have some discussion.
What would Jesus do? Not what you are doing. That is for sure.
Do you understand my failing Christian friend? I am not discussing "legality". I am discussing "public perception" of a single religions code of laws being displayed in a society of massively mixed religious background. I am discussing the subtle religous approach to giving government the "right to express religion". I am discussing the true necessity for separation of church and state.
Yes, I think we're clearing things up... The problem is that I saw you were trying to take this "perception" thing to the level of law. The church and state are separated. If you want to go down this road then you have to answer my question... "who gets to decide what "is" or "is not" religious.
<SNIPED for uselessness...>
The definition of religion is "belief system" see...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Believing in no god is still a belief system and therefore a religion. It is most certainly the dogmatic religion of the day... Try to stay focused.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
While this is an accurate legal interpretation of the law, it doesn't address whatsoever the necessity for a divide of Church and State. Of course, this is where we will come to a head, because you will deny that displayed preference of biblical law, specifically the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments (NOT the Muslim version as inferred earlier), shows any amount of preference for a given religion whatsoever, and that the presence of such may be an indication of some of the deciding factors in application of the law in a given locality or the rulings contained in the courthouse. As noted in a prior post, I have specifically laid out the example that a Muslim, or any other individual of another faith, may express downright fear, or at a minimum, trepidation towards the unilateral, equal application of the law. Were are not a Jewish, or Christian, nation. Why would the government at any level seek to cast any allusion whatsoever that we are through the display of religion derived totems, icons, or texts?
The real answer is that they should not.
You see it another way, and that's fine. However, in consideration of others and without the clouding of religious commandment, I see it as an affront to other religions (Note I didn't say it affronts "Atheism"), and I know other religions do as well.
It seems the Supreme Court, in both instances (Florida and Alabama), and on the basis that all courthouses are part of the Department of Justice, restricted the display of religious paraphenelia from being outright displayed.
As you know (and apparently georg jetson does not), grievances against localities, to include, local courthouses, may well fall under the purview of the Supreme Court. Such is the Appellate process.
The Supreme Court does in fact have the authority to determine what actually constitues a religious display. This is determined by the Establishment Clause . This is how the government is able to enforce not only grievances against religious entities or individuals, but how it is able to disallow preferential display of one religion over the other in government matters, to include local municipalities. After all, if the local court is sued for violations of the first on the basis of religious preference, then said judgement is appealled, it will indeed travel upwards until it is heard by the Supreme Court. This is where those determinations are made.
In both cases, they support the illegality of display or acts of religious preference by local government. This forced both Ten Commandments displays to be removed, and frankly, for good purpose.
The sourcing of the funds is inconsequential in application of the law. We are not discussing a local recreation center or other not-for-profit non-government related entity, or any privately owned establishment. We are discussing a courthouse that is an extension of the DoJ.
Furthermore, a structural analysis of English composition in the case of the First Amendment is extremely important. It is just as important as the recognition of "People" in the 2nd.
Freedom "from" religion is indeed one of the purposes of the 1st Amendment. In fact, it is the most important purpose.
Do you remember why the colonists left England in the first place?
Are you aware of why the 1st is literaly #1 on the BoR?
Always be wary of a government entity displaying any religious preference. Once it is embedded, thats when the problems come. Even if you think your religion would "fix everything in government".
There is not a single passed law or measure that would prevent historical, non-religion derived displays from being erected. The presence of Stonewall Jackson is devoid of religious ties.
Furthermore, the presence of said statue is not in any way a display of religious preference on its face. You may make allusions or ties to faith through several steps of extensive bridge building, but the simple fact is that he is a man who served as a General during the Civil War. This historical perspective is, again, devoid of religious sourcing, and is not indicative of religious preference in any way. You have even cemented this point by claiming it to be a "secular" example.
You miss the entire purpose of the Establishment Clause when you give government the right to display its religious preferences. Religion is to be kept separate from the state, lest we end up under the rule of the papacy or some other faith.
Incorrect. Due to the Establishment Clause, it is indeed within the purview of the Supreme Court to render rulings on displays of religion by government entities. It is also historically inaccurate to state that the preferential display of religious doctrine or icons is permissible at the government level and, specifically, that the 1st Amendment allows this.
Correct.
The Supreme Court via the Establishment Clause can also prevent the preferential display of religious items, doctrine, and icons by municipalities and federal government.
There is a lot of supposition and misrepresentation of facts in your post, but overall I think it was an honest effort by yourself to express how you really feel.
Remember frommycoldeadhands, our forefathers escaped a government that embraced religion in government, knowing full well the signs and methods used to eventually lead to said form of government.
Freedom from religion, in the context of the government, is a necessity for equality and, furthermore, the Supreme Court does have the purview to prevent preferential religious display on behalf of the government.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Busy Busy.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
Keep herping that derp. It's your mind numbing comments that keep drawing me in. Like a train wreck: terrible, but I can't look away. For example, insisting "lack of belief in a god" is a religion. While we're calling silly things by other names, can we call "bald" a hair color, "sitting at home" the favorite vehicle you like to drive, or "water" your favorite alcoholic beverage? They all make as much sense.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Let me hold your hand and do the leg work for you. Look up and thoroughly read the Establishment Clause.
No he was removed for good purpose. He refused to comply with a lawful order mandated to him by the Supreme Court via the Establishment Clause.
My "presumption" is based on the orders given to you in the Bible. If you do not wish to abide by said "divine instruction", we could determine you are a Sunday Christian. Not at all unbelievable by your attitude and actions.
Again, read the Establishment Clause. You want to argue on the basis of legality. I tried to reason with you on the playing field of rational thought and critical thinking. I should have known that this was above your capacity.
Religious preference is not to be displayed by the government. Citation:
Justice Hugo Black Everson v. Board of Education (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 form 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."
So much for attempting to get you to realize the sheer stupidity in state sponsored religious displays via critical thinking and rational thought.
Oh well....
Here's the facts jack. It is illegal per the Establishment Clause for the state to engage in religiously preferential activity.
Bullcrap. Religion indoctrination is all about perception. By displaying the Ten Commandment out in front of a courthouse you are reinforcing both Judaism and Christianity.
Your weak arguments of "Oh its harmless" might work on the substantially stupid, but the inference of them being there is not lost on those with half a brain cell. Nor is your defense that they are "harmless historical relics" to permit their stay so they can display the "power of Christianity" in the American legal system transparent either.
No. I wanted to try to get you to think rationally about the first amendment and the purpose for its ratification. I wanted you to think independently about your position on state displayed preferences of religion, and the historical purpose for separation of church and state. I didn't want to have the discussion of legality, but since you brought it up sparky, yeah, it is in fact illegal to show preferential treatment via the Establishment Clause, a subset of the First Amendment, ratified against the states via the 14th. Have a nice day brah!
You are so hilariously deficient its not even funny.
The definition you state is #5 on the list, which of course, in dictionary terms is how you determine pertinent definition applicability.
Furthermore, a "System of beliefs" is a plural exercise comprising a whole. You also fail to comprehend the difference between disbelief, and belief. This is the failing of many religious individuals who can't seem to grasp the thought of dynamicism and non-adherence.
You have a ton to learn, but you wont. Also, Atheism has been around pretty much forever, so your statement that it is "of the day" is incorrect.
Furthermore, "Dogma" is defined as a religiously derived set of instructions not to be challenged.
This shows the lack of intellect on your part because:
A.) We have no "set" of instructions. (No genius. A single belief does not constitute a "set")
and
B.) Challenge away! Unlike religion, or most who fall into that category, Atheists typically are critical thinkers, intellectual, analytical, and conversational. We welcome talking about the disbelief in God, just as we would welcome conversation about particle physics, mechanical engineering or biology.
Nice try though!
Atheism is not a religion.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Well... I was gonna leave this one alone but, I see my alias is mentioned so...
You're right that this is "an accurate legal interpretation of the law", AND I understand the point you're making. Without getting into analogies let me point out clearly... Though a perceived "religious" object that may adorn the wall of a court MAY cause trepidation or outright intimidation, giving a branch of government the power to decide what shall constitute a "religious" object gives it the power to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. Truly a dangerous thing!! Trying to fix this "perceived" problem will only give more power to the centralized government.
NO the real answer is... It's up to the judge elected or appointed.
It maybe an affront to other religions... so... It's a court of law. The judges job is to be an objective referee regardless of what's on the walls. Taking supposed "religious" objects off of the wall does NOTHING useful to a presiding judges work ethics.
Oh... atheism is a religion... It's just not convenient for you to admit(realize) it.
This is factually INCORRECT. The "Department of Justice"? Really?? Do you refer to the EXECUTIVE branch agency of the federal government. The JUDICIAL branches of either state to which you refer have NO affiliation with the US Department of Justice. If you can show such a thing and can PROVE it then you can prove a violation of the separation of powers clause of both the applicable state and US constitutions.
Grievances against localities can be appealed (with a little luck) to the SCOTUS. However, the SCOTUS should properly recognize the appropriate application of the law and find that the legislature has no power to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion... unless of course the petition contains no such argument, but instead contains a request to interpret something that is NOT LAW.
I had to try real hard not to be sarcastic here...
NO. What the federal court system has the authority to do is to ensure that no law passed by congress is outside the authority the constitution gives to it. If a law is passed "respecting and establishment of religion", then the SCOTUS can strike down such a law. At the local level matters of constitutionality can be entertained.
If the court is used in any other way then it is ABUSING its power.
How is a court sued for "violations of the first on the basis of religious preference". Are you speaking of having a judgment overturned because a defendant/plaintiff's 1st amendment rights were violated? That's bazaar. Can you cite any examples of this?
In the case provided in the link in the state of Alabama, SCOTUS was not involved. Do some homework.
You have a mundane understanding of the legal system. See my answer above.
Yes... lets post the 1st...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let me emphasis... !!or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!!
Where do you see we're supposed to be free from our belief systems?
NO. Be wary of a government given the power to determine what "is" or "is not" religious... or to determine what constitutes a "religion" for that matter. We'll have the atheists "religion" claiming exemption for sure.
Irrelevant... Somebody COULD worship Stonewall Jackson. How many people does it take worshiping Jackson before it becomes YOUR definition of religion?
No. You can't read!! Also, you miss the dangerous power you give to government to determine what "is" and "is not" religious.
The 1st allows NOTHING. It prevents congress from acting... PERIOD!! The only thing the judicial branch is allowed to do is make sure that CONGRESS obeys the 1st.
WRONG. It can only negate laws passed by legislative bodies.
Edit - It's because these posts are getting lengthy that I'm not myself. Otherwise I'd be all over you butt insisting you PROVE this statement up. You're statement is complete BS.
You're right that this is "an accurate legal interpretation of the law", AND I understand the point you're making. Without getting into analogies let me point out clearly... Though a perceived "religious" object that may adorn the wall of a court MAY cause trepidation or outright intimidation, giving a branch of government the power to decide what shall constitute a "religious" object gives it the power to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. Truly a dangerous thing!! Trying to fix this "perceived" problem will only give more power to the centralized government.
NO the real answer is... It's up to the judge elected or appointed.
It maybe an affront to other religions... so... It's a court of law. The judges job is to be an objective referee regardless of what's on the walls. Taking supposed "religious" objects off of the wall does NOTHING useful to a presiding judges work ethics.
Oh... atheism is a religion... It's just not convenient for you to admit(realize) it.
This is factually INCORRECT. The "Department of Justice"? Really?? Do you refer to the EXECUTIVE branch agency of the federal government. The JUDICIAL branches of either state to which you refer have NO affiliation with the US Department of Justice. If you can show such a thing and can PROVE it then you can prove a violation of the separation of powers clause of both the applicable state and US constitutions.
Grievances against localities can be appealed (with a little luck) to the SCOTUS. However, the SCOTUS should properly recognize the appropriate application of the law and find that the legislature has no power to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion... unless of course the petition contains no such argument, but instead contains a request to interpret something that is NOT LAW.
I had to try real hard not to be sarcastic here...
NO. What the federal court system has the authority to do is to ensure that no law passed by congress is outside the authority the constitution gives to it. If a law is passed "respecting and establishment of religion", then the SCOTUS can strike down such a law. At the local level matters of constitutionality can be entertained.
If the court is used in any other way then it is ABUSING its power.
How is a court sued for "violations of the first on the basis of religious preference". Are you speaking of having a judgment overturned because a defendant/plaintiff's 1st amendment rights were violated? That's bazaar. Can you cite any examples of this?
In the case provided in the link in the state of Alabama, SCOTUS was not involved. Do some homework.
You have a mundane understanding of the legal system. See my answer above.
Yes... lets post the 1st...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let me emphasis... !!or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!!
Where do you see we're supposed to be free from our belief systems?
NO. Be wary of a government given the power to determine what "is" or "is not" religious... or to determine what constitutes a "religion" for that matter. We'll have the atheists "religion" claiming exemption for sure.
Irrelevant... Somebody COULD worship Stonewall Jackson. How many people does it take worshiping Jackson before it becomes YOUR definition of religion?
No. You can't read!! Also, you miss the dangerous power you give to government to determine what "is" and "is not" religious.
The 1st allows NOTHING. It prevents congress from acting... PERIOD!! The only thing the judicial branch is allowed to do is make sure that CONGRESS obeys the 1st.
WRONG. It can only negate laws passed by legislative bodies.
Edit - It's because these posts are getting lengthy that I'm not myself. Otherwise I'd be all over you butt insisting you PROVE this statement up. You're statement is complete BS.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
More sarcasm... unexpected
At least you're trying.
You're right!!! I surely don't believe in a god!!! I believe in the giant space spaghetti monster. I'm not commanded to read any specific books... I don't have to tell anyone else about the gssm (short for giant space spaghetti monster). All I'm required to believe is that the gssm created everything. Is belief in the gssm a religion?
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
.....annnnd nothing you type even shows you read the law, nor do you understand that freedom of religion is protected at the individual level, not the governmental level. Hence your argument about how it is "protected" is laughably ignorant and, well, completely wrong.
Read again pal. The Establishment Clause applies to government sanctioned religious activities and displays. Did you even read it guy?
Nah. You didn't.
The rest of your argument remains laughably unimportant nor relevant.
The Supreme Court has the power through cases brought before it to prevent government from displaying religiously sourced icons and text.
Such as it banned state sanctioned prayer in public schools in Abington Township v. Schemp.
What does this mean my special friend? It means individuals engaging in prayer is a protected right, but the state cannot force compulsory prayer (a religious activity) upon students. Specifically, in this case, the Lords Prayer.
You falsely claimed I do not cite my sources, which was comical, but to top it off you deny the proof I have posted right in your face.
You're ignorant, arrogant, and not very well learned.
Even as the proof is provided to you, you deny the precedent established by the Supreme Court and the many cases that have been tried before it, including the Ten Commandments case.
Also, if you feel it necessary to take your historically unsubstantiated presumptuous belief that a statue of Stonewall Jackson can be the basis for a religious argument, then by all means take it all the way to SCOTUS. When it doesn't even make it to through appeals after being laughably dismissed, let me know. I want to be the first one to laugh at you.
Stonewall Jackson has very limited ties or associations with which you could bind "religion" to. Good luck in court though!
The Ten Commandments? Yeah bro, those are, de facto, wholly religious in sourcing, and the commandments of a religion well established for thousands of years. Durp.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Read it??? I posted it. You didn't
No it doesn't.
The way the state forces "compulsory prayer" is by law. We're back to the "congress shall pass no law".
Here's a quote from your source... syllabus found here... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZS.html
"Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day -- even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227."
Do you know WHY this is correct. It's because "state law or school board" are legislative LAW. You PROVE my point.
Why do you waste your time typing this crap? I could say the same thing about you. What does it accomplish?
Cite??
Historically unsubstantiated??? What if people start worshiping him tomorrow? So... Are you saying people can't worship him? I'm gonna worship him tomorrow just to piss you off. Why wait till tomorrow... I'll include him in my bedtime prayers. In thy name great Stonewall!!
Did I mention that I'm not a very good Christian. I'm a BAD Christian... but a Christian none the less...
Says YOU. I disagree. AND as long as it's just you and me arguing then that's just fine. If the government is given the power to pick the winner... unconstitutional!!!
Edit - Almost missed it... Durp... C'mon Slow. You're above that.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Excuse me Mr. Blatant liar?
I provided a link for it several posts above.
If you HAD posted it prior, I never saw it. Saying I didn't post it, then quoting a citation from it is extremely disingenuous on your behalf. Well, actually, its a blatant lie.
Uh yeah brah, it does.
"In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory."
Not a law.
"In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events."
Not a law.
"In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation)."
Not a law, and interestingly, not as specific in direction as how to conduct ones self as a Christian as the Ten Commandments.
You are picking and choosing your historical understand from the cases you do not turn a blind eye to.
If it is not an enacted piece of legislation, then it is not a "law", but more accurately represented by compulsory participation under color of law.
You need to understand the difference. Furthermore, not every case as I have proven via citation above, dealt with the striking down of a "law".
Your argument is unfounded.
No, you omit any and all cases that substantiate my claim. While I am not denying what you say to be true in regards to the striking of laws, you are presumptuously, and ignorantly, denying what I say to be true as pointed out repeatedly above. The Supreme Court has, and will continue to ensure the lack of religious entwining on behalf of the government. If you have noticed in a previous case, the Supreme Court did not find a picture of the Ten Commandments with the text blurred out or unreadable to be entwining. Frankly, I agree with their assessment. It is one thing to have a picture of the Ten Commandments. It is wholly another to have a fully readable, fully instructional set displayed in front of a courthouse.
Tra-le-dah. The Supreme Court Justices agree with me.
Read back over the countless comments you had made prior to my arrival in this thread.
I second your following "I'm not a good Christian" comment.
Already did above. Please read intently, and without the religious blinders on.
Hey man GREAT for you! Good luck with your case, and I await the results.
Let me know when you are done with that.
Agreed.
I know right. Its almost like they would put up Judeo-Christian specific religious items in or upon government buildings or grounds...
Oh wait...
The answer is that there is no "winner" as you put it. Displaying the Ten Commandments is in fact preferential. Again. Supreme Court agrees with me on three cases.
I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I need very little to no external coddling or reinforcement. I have no necessity to look to the sky and pray to fantasy creatures inhabiting celestial plateaus.
In short, I really assign no value to your plea for closeness by stating what I am, and am not "above".
You have, as I have repeatedly pointed out, put the religious glasses on and omitted the cases that fully support my statements.
Wearing the same glasses you deny that the Supreme Court justices clearly agree with my perspective, and understanding of disassociation of Government from all things Religious, when not defending the individual via the 1st Amendment, is an imperative avenue of pursuit.
You claim repeatedly that government should not be able to "declare what constitutes a 'winning' religion", then fail epically to see that placing religious literature, totems, icons, and texts on or about government premises gives the impression of religious endorsement. "WINNING"
If a private business owner places a fish on their business card, I know they are a Christian owned business.
If religious texts find their way into wall hangings, or are displayed by religious icons at a place of business, it is an indicator of religious affiliation. (Buddha in a Chinese food restaurant, In-N-Out with their verses on cups etc.) However, you and others would have us believe that the presence of the fully listed Ten Commandments is a "non-indicator". Yeah OK bud.
C'est la vie
You have made some pretty "durp" assessments, and my comment was spot on.
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
Wow, I missed quite a bit.
I never purported that the Ten Commandments were not a religious item. I clearly stated that they are held sacred by all of the Abrahamic faiths. I was pointing out that they can also be seen in other lights as well, as can any symbol. Hence the 'eye of the beholder' comment I made some time ago.
I do not think that they are automatically indicative of a religious preference in the same manner that I don't think that the Stonewall Jackson statue is indicative in supporting the Confederate States of America or the practice of slavery.
Right, but I brought up the Statue of Liberty in response to you stating that a Christian cannot support a statue of another religion. The Statue of Liberty's design clearly draws inspiration from statues of the Greek goddessses. A quick google search will produce a few hundred hits of people discussing the matter. Here's one for free http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1731970/statue_of_liberty_modeled_on_pagan.html?cat=37
And if you take a look around any major city you'll find statues of hercules, atlas, hermes, and other such things. My point was that it is entirely possible for a Christian to appriciate these art-works (whether they are religious icons of other cultures or not). And yes, I would gladly fight to keep a statue of hercules from being torn down if someone wanted to cast it as a religious issue.
I never purported that the Ten Commandments were not a religious item. I clearly stated that they are held sacred by all of the Abrahamic faiths. I was pointing out that they can also be seen in other lights as well, as can any symbol. Hence the 'eye of the beholder' comment I made some time ago.
I do not think that they are automatically indicative of a religious preference in the same manner that I don't think that the Stonewall Jackson statue is indicative in supporting the Confederate States of America or the practice of slavery.
Right, but I brought up the Statue of Liberty in response to you stating that a Christian cannot support a statue of another religion. The Statue of Liberty's design clearly draws inspiration from statues of the Greek goddessses. A quick google search will produce a few hundred hits of people discussing the matter. Here's one for free http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1731970/statue_of_liberty_modeled_on_pagan.html?cat=37
And if you take a look around any major city you'll find statues of hercules, atlas, hermes, and other such things. My point was that it is entirely possible for a Christian to appriciate these art-works (whether they are religious icons of other cultures or not). And yes, I would gladly fight to keep a statue of hercules from being torn down if someone wanted to cast it as a religious issue.
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
Well really I was just responding to your post that held a wholly negative presentation of Christians. We sort of got looped into the 10 Commandments and all of that, but at the end of the day my only message was that although some people who call themselves Christians act foolishly, the real message behind the religion is one of tolerance, love, and a whole lot of live-and-let-live. Yes there are rules that a Christian should follow, but the Bible really isn't about forcing our lifestyle on to other people, nor judging others for their beliefs.
This makes me question what your definition of 'devout' is. I don't hate anyone. Does that make me less devout? I am tolerant of other peoples beliefs and believe that liberty and individuality are cornerstones of the Christian faith. Am I less devout now?
If you judge a person's 'devoutness' based upon how many people they exclude, or by the bigotries and hate that they spew, then the Westboro Baptist Church must be the most devout Christians on the planet.
Personally I just consider them bigots who missed the message entirely and now twist scripture to meet their own needs for an excuse to hate on people.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
There is no further elaboration or enlightenment necessary to understand the 10 Commandments as explicitly Judeo-Christian. We understand their religious sourcing to be definite. They are a literal display of religious ideology.
You have to scrutinize Stonewall Jackson in order to move beyond the fact he was a significant individual in American history.
You may find basis to pursue removal of Stonewall Jackson if it bothers you, but you would have to do so under either class protection, or code violation. I don't know that "I don't like him" would qualify for legal means of removal.
You are clouding the reality of the statues sourcing. The problem with the comparison of the Statue of Liberty and the Ten Commandments is obvious.
One is a de facto physical manifestation of religious law in its native form. Its design, content, and entire sourcing are exclusively religious, as is its whole intent. It even lists that particular religions rules.
The other, as you put so succinctly, draws inspiration from religious statues. It is absolutely, completely, and wholly imperative to understand the difference.
The Statue of Liberty is an expression of art applied to cultural freedom.
The Ten Commandments are religious law.
If you find pantheistic religious displays on federal or state property, you may have an argument on your hand for having them removed. I don't think you will find too many pantheism followers pursuing defense of their placement though so you may just have a clean sweep in court.
since9
Campaign Veteran
My $250
While in college, I spent a summer in the Library of Congress researching many of the 50,000+ documents specifically written by our Founding Fathers contained therein. My purpose was simple: To determine if, and to what extent, the concept of the Separation of Church and State as we know it today is in agreement with the many letters and documents of those who drafted our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, specifically the first half our our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I quickly discovered it most certainly is not.
1. I observed the vast majority of the Separation of Church and State rhetoric out there, including many of the Supreme Court rulings on the matter, are pure, unadulterated bunk diametrically opposed to the explicit and implicit intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in both the First Amendment itself as well as in thousands of official and personal supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers.
2. I observed a strong correlation between the vociferousness of those who hold the concept of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) high and their animosity towards any religious display, particularly if they also hold Christianity or religion in general in disdain, or if they hold anti-Christian systems of belief or atheism in general, in high esteem.
3. I observed most of the pro-SOCAS arguments rely heavily on court rulings, and are markedly void of comments by the drafters of the First Amendment and contemporaries of those drafters as contained in the 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.
4. I observed most of the pro-Founders arguments, naturally, relay heavily on those 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.
5. The Library of Congress has not hidden these documents away in any respect. They remain in the Library of Congress, and are available for viewing by the general public. Approval takes a while, and you must wear white gloves.[/I]
Substantiating my observations:
A. The Founders repeatedly invoked God in the Declaration of Independence and most of their 50,000+ documents, whether personal letters to one another, friends, and family, or official letters of note, including Congressional Record of early proceedings of Congress. Daily invocations of prayer continue to this day in Congress, as does the Congressional chaplain and chaplains throughout all military branches of service and
B. Both the Founders and state governments expressed concern about repeating the grievous harm caused by the state-sponsored (mandated) religion of the Church of England. Their solution was ensure the federal government had no say so over religious matters, either in support of them or against them. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.
C. Of the Founders, almost to a man, except for three abstainers, they believed in a Christian God. Between half and two-thirds were devout Christians. This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.
D. Both the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson and his response are a matter of public records. The letter to the President simply expressed concern over governmental intrusion on religious freedoms, and the President's letter in response simply reassured the Danbury Baptists that such intrusion was not in the purview of the government. This is plainly evidence in Jefferson's own writings after the fact.
E. During his term of presidency, Thomas Jefferson himself opened up the Treasury Building for worship services to help alleviate the problem of a rapidly growing population surging ahead of building efforts. Jefferson did not see this as an intrusion on religious freedoms, but as a support of religious freedom. This fact was reported on the Library of Congress' website for several years, from about 1998 through 2001.
That's the gist of the results of my summer study. For what it's worth.
My conclusion is that those who hold "the separation of church and state" concept as it has grown and developed over the years higher than the simple verbiage of the First Amendment and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists are fooling themselves. Those who keep citing SCOTUS decisions one after another are missing the same boat as SCOTUS has missed over the last two centuries.
Out.
While in college, I spent a summer in the Library of Congress researching many of the 50,000+ documents specifically written by our Founding Fathers contained therein. My purpose was simple: To determine if, and to what extent, the concept of the Separation of Church and State as we know it today is in agreement with the many letters and documents of those who drafted our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, specifically the first half our our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I quickly discovered it most certainly is not.
1. I observed the vast majority of the Separation of Church and State rhetoric out there, including many of the Supreme Court rulings on the matter, are pure, unadulterated bunk diametrically opposed to the explicit and implicit intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in both the First Amendment itself as well as in thousands of official and personal supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers.
2. I observed a strong correlation between the vociferousness of those who hold the concept of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) high and their animosity towards any religious display, particularly if they also hold Christianity or religion in general in disdain, or if they hold anti-Christian systems of belief or atheism in general, in high esteem.
3. I observed most of the pro-SOCAS arguments rely heavily on court rulings, and are markedly void of comments by the drafters of the First Amendment and contemporaries of those drafters as contained in the 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.
4. I observed most of the pro-Founders arguments, naturally, relay heavily on those 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.
5. The Library of Congress has not hidden these documents away in any respect. They remain in the Library of Congress, and are available for viewing by the general public. Approval takes a while, and you must wear white gloves.[/I]
Substantiating my observations:
A. The Founders repeatedly invoked God in the Declaration of Independence and most of their 50,000+ documents, whether personal letters to one another, friends, and family, or official letters of note, including Congressional Record of early proceedings of Congress. Daily invocations of prayer continue to this day in Congress, as does the Congressional chaplain and chaplains throughout all military branches of service and
B. Both the Founders and state governments expressed concern about repeating the grievous harm caused by the state-sponsored (mandated) religion of the Church of England. Their solution was ensure the federal government had no say so over religious matters, either in support of them or against them. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.
C. Of the Founders, almost to a man, except for three abstainers, they believed in a Christian God. Between half and two-thirds were devout Christians. This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.
D. Both the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson and his response are a matter of public records. The letter to the President simply expressed concern over governmental intrusion on religious freedoms, and the President's letter in response simply reassured the Danbury Baptists that such intrusion was not in the purview of the government. This is plainly evidence in Jefferson's own writings after the fact.
E. During his term of presidency, Thomas Jefferson himself opened up the Treasury Building for worship services to help alleviate the problem of a rapidly growing population surging ahead of building efforts. Jefferson did not see this as an intrusion on religious freedoms, but as a support of religious freedom. This fact was reported on the Library of Congress' website for several years, from about 1998 through 2001.
That's the gist of the results of my summer study. For what it's worth.
My conclusion is that those who hold "the separation of church and state" concept as it has grown and developed over the years higher than the simple verbiage of the First Amendment and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists are fooling themselves. Those who keep citing SCOTUS decisions one after another are missing the same boat as SCOTUS has missed over the last two centuries.
Out.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
I am wondering what documents you read? I will provide, in the interest of educational decorum, comprehensive citations as to founder commentary in conflict with what you state.
Statements such as these?:
James Madison
"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) *Such as the display of religious doctrine, law, or exercise by the federal or local government.
"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) *Please note that the inference states "Entire abstinence", not "partial or limited exercising of".
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself" (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811)
Rufus King:
"...he remarked that he had never wished to see the "lawn sleeves" of Episcopal bishops in America. "I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church--an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments--but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government" (Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57, emphasis mine).
Edmund Randolph:
"Congress has no power over religion and...the exclusion of religious tests for federal officeholders meant that "they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect." He added that there were so many different sects in the Unites States that "they will prevent the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty" (Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, p. 89)
Charles Pinckney:
This is one of his specific beliefs and well-established historical viewpoints as a founder -
-That he united with James Madison in proposing that Congress should be specifically empowered to establish a university "in which no preference or distinction should be allowed on account of religion.-
Thomas Jefferson:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority" (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808). *The Ten Commandments are in fact religious law as well as doctrine.
A list of many of the Founders who believed firmly in seperation of Church and State:
- James Madison
- James Wilson
- Rufus King
- Elbridge Gerry
- Edmund Randolph
- Charles Pinckney
- George Mason
- Alexander Hamilton
- Gouverneur Morris
- John Rutledge
- Caleb Strong
- George Read
- John Marshall
- John Vining
- Ben Franklin
- Fisher Ames
- James Monroe
- James McHenry
- Thomas Jefferson
- Samuel Adams
- Patrick Henry
- John Q. Adams
- John Adams
- Oliver Ellsworth
- Ben Rush
- John Jay
- John Randolph
- Joseph Story
- Henry Lee
- John Hancock
- John Witherspoon
- Noah Webster
If necessary, and if you deem to pursue this conversation after specifically stating you have been to the libraries of congress, and clearly, disingenuously studied the founders position on the separation of church and state, i will happily, and with personal promise, post every statement made, by every founder that I can find, which proves your commentary beyond this point questionable.
It is absolutely established in this reply, that any claim that there is no link between the founders and the separation of church and state, is disingenuous and dishonest, despite ones claims to have studied in the library of congress.
It is also well established, and well understood, that many founders, including Thomas Jefferson, did not want government partaking in any sort of doctrine, religious law, or religious exercise. *Thomas Jefferson section of this post, as annotated above.
An unmeasurable metric being used to justify personal observation of an assumed state of mind. In other words, a completely unsubstantiated opinion.
I have no disdain or hatred for Christianity.
I simply want an equitable government without preferential exercise on governments behalf, towards a given religion. This is in line with many of the founders comments. If you cannot see the necessity for firm division, that is your lack of critical thinking, and not my issue, nor that of any other equality seeking free man or woman.
Were the display discussed in this thread changed to an opened copy of the Qu'Ran displaying Shariahs law, I would likewise take enormous issue with it.
However, it is not in your best interest as a Christian to acknowledge this!
No, it is in your best interest to somehow try to denigrate the pursuit of equality by trying to bind it to various subsets of humanity. Such terms are sensationalist, such as "Anti-Christian". An appeal to the emotional side of individuals, particularly Christians you seek to evoke support from.
I don't want your Bible displayed by my government. Nor do I want the Qu'ran, the Satanic Bible, the book of Mormon, or any other religious doctrine, law, or religious exercise.
I don't want any part of its laws on full display in my countries judicial system.
If you have a problem with this, then you miss entirely Jeffersons inference as posted above.
I have not, as of yet, visited the Library of Congress. Were you honest, you would admit that you have not either.
However, had you somehow missed the uncountable references made by the founders, I have been extremely polite in providing them for you above in great detail.
Should you require any more assistance in locating any and all citations by the founders supporting the "Pro-SOCAS" position as you put it, I will be happy to guide you extensively.
Seriously. 32 of the founders have made explicit statements about the separation of church and state, yet you missed them while looking for them in the library of congress?
Please explain in great detail how this happens.
Thanks...
"pro-Founders" is a desperate, pathetic reaching attempt on your part to state that the founders wanted union of Church and State. This is incorrect as pointed out clearly, concisely, and directly, above.
The majority of the founders were for the separation of Church and State. Therefore, by definition, the "Pro-Founders" position is, in fact, the upholding of the separation of Church and State.
I am wondering how you missed so many founders (at least 32 of them) who specifically state that there is a hard necessity for the existence of separation of Church and State?
Did you actually look for this topic?
I have to admit to being a little let down here since9. As an officer in the U.S. Air Force, you know how imperative it is to be thorough. You make this grand reference to the libraries of Congress, then post nothing at all in any way from the library substantiating your claims.
You then create this bi-party scheme asserting that anybody who is for the unity of Church and State, is a "Pro-Founder", while those who actually study the founders and realize the original statements, BY the founders to be "Pro-Socas" and in opposition to the founders. It is rhetorical, unsubstantiated nonsense on your behalf.
It took me, literally, 5 minutes to relocate the previous founder statements on the topic, and many more, that I remembered reading (mostly Jefferson at the time) regarding the necessity for a separation of Church and State. Yet after a trip to the Library of Congress yourself, you were unable to find founder references to such a well discussed topic during the ratification conventions as the separation of Church and State, and the historical perspective of King George the III's Church and State union being a driving factor in their escape from tyranny?
Did you look for them?
They also included references to the necessity for the Separation of Church and State in the exact same letters and documents you reference.
Could it be that the comments about faith were made to family members who shared the same faith, yet the realization was that government should not have said luxury?
Furthermore, you completely lack the understanding of the fundamental difference between forced religious display by a government body, and the allowance of prayer.
There is an enormous disconnect there, wherein one is the simple acknowledgement of the held beliefs of many in congress and the fact that their daily routine may be so busy that impedance to their religious beliefs is an issue. The Constitution enumerates the rights of the individual, thus prayer is just fine by the individuals comprising congress. It's not like they are prohibiting a muslim member, were there one, from performing his morning prayer ion chambers too. That is religious equality and freedom.
The static display of religious law is, however, preferential in nature. It displays the religious preference of a judicial locality in this case. As already noted several times, if the slabs were blank, it would be hard to say that they were specifically the Ten Commandments, and not a historical inference to stone tablature.
Disingenuous commentary. The founders specifically stated in several letters (again, that you somehow missed) that the government was to abstain from religious preference. Allowing for display of specific religious doctrine, law, texts, totems, icons etc., is all specifically preferential.
There is not an argument that can be meaningfully constructed against this using any form of collegiate level critical thinking. However, you will try.
Lie. Blatant lie. Even those who were wanted none of their religion to hold sway whatsoever in government as they realized it would corrupt government.
Thomas Jefferson:
"But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true light, as no imposter himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." -- letter to William Short, April 13, 1820; Definition of a Materialist:
"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, "something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell." -- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5, 1817
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814[/FONT]
Benjamin Franklin:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
[/FONT]
"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." -1803 letter objecting use of government land for churches
"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me 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 thorough deist."
- Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793
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."
[SIZE=-1]"A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "[SIZE=-1]Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE]
"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."
[SIZE=-1] -- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)
Thomas Paine:
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine
"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies." - Thomas Paine
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church" (Thomas Paine - Age of Reason)
"From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the Christian system or thought it to be a strange affair." (Thomas Paine - Age of Reason)
George Washington:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] - letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
[/FONT]
I can fill this page lengthwise rebuking and rebutting every single erroneous claim you have made, but I will sum this up simply.
The founding fathers were from various religious backgrounds. Of great popularity then and today, is deism. Many were deists.
To lay claim that a group of Christians would come together to make a religiously free nation with near no recognition as to Christianity, is disingenuous at best, and morally defunct at worst. It is attributing to Christianity more credit than it has right to lay claim to.
An old ploy of religious followers and leaders has been to attribute to those long since dead affiliation with their religious body.
It's shameful and reprehensible.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Your expression does not change the factual content of the message he delivered.
He expresses clearly, succinctly, and with great directness the complete existence of, and necessity, for a separation of church and state. It is the necessity he is referencing when he tells the Danbury church that government will not encroach upon their civil rights.
One does not define individual freedom of religion, particularly one as learned as Thomas Jefferson, by stating that there is a clear dividing wall separating church and state.
There is of course no issue with this. In a prayer for aid and relief the government served the people by opening up its halls for any and all denominations and religions to pursue their faith oriented services.
As part of the support for religious freedom, this activity only makes sense. It embraces the individual concept of religious freedom and allows it to empower itself.
This is not, as clearly demonstrated, specific in religious display. The Treasury was open to any and all denominations and was not explicitly recognizing of any particular one.
Just because your faith was in there somewhere, does not mean the government explicitly supports your faith. It means it has made available the means for you to exercise your faith, regardless its origin.
THAT is true religious equality, and I would die to support that.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
My conclusion is that your studies need to continue, and that your single assessment of Jeffersons response to the Danbury Baptists is not only in error, but singular in regards to the numerous other founders comments supporting, even demanding the separation of church and state. This is extremely limiting and, I personally believe, conscientiously limited to your religious perspective.
By the way, I am 30 minutes from 101 Independence Ave. SE.
If anybody wants me to go take a look at the sources I cite, I'd be happy to go with you and show you personally.
The separation of church and state was supported by nearly all the founders, and I would be happy to prove it to pretty much anybody.
Peace.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bookmarked!