Stray Pooch
New member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2005
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Shenandoah Valley, VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Take Patrick Henry for example, when he said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Here, Patrick Henry emphasizes the fact that although all religions have been afforded asylum to worship, it is the Christian principles and religious teachings of Jesus that provide for the foundation of the Rule of Law.
John Adams was quite fond of making religious inferences when both speaking and writing. “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”
With this quote, again we see that it was not only the founder’s intent to create a nation based in religious principles, but that they felt is was wholly necessary to do so in order to ensure the success of the nation. This is evidenced again by James Madison, "Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government." I could continue but will allow this as sufficient evidence with which to make my case.
PatriotSon said:The founder's intent is the shadow of a shade. It depends on which founder you cite. The question of religious liberty, establishment and practice was not a matter of unanimity. That's why the disestablishment clause was included in the bill of rights. I personally believe the Constitution to be a God-inspired document, but I believe part of that inspiration included separating the fallible governments of men from the administration of God's kingdom. That administration is the responsibility of the church, not the government. We are not a Christian nation. We are a free nation. That means we are free to choose - and accept the consequences for - whatever course of action we will.
PatriotSon said:The real "founders" of the constitution were Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and Adams. These men had more to do with the Constitution than anyone. And there wasn’t one of them that didn’t believe they were building a country based on Christian principles.
PatriotSon said:The founder's intent is the shadow of a shade. It depends on which founder you cite. The question of religious liberty, establishment and practice was not a matter of unanimity. That's why the disestablishment clause was included in the bill of rights. I personally believe the Constitution to be a God-inspired document, but I believe part of that inspiration included separating the fallible governments of men from the administration of God's kingdom. That administration is the responsibility of the church, not the government. We are not a Christian nation. We are a free nation. That means we are free to choose - and accept the consequences for - whatever course of action we will.
The U.S. Constitution
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the
Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
John Adams
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"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.
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
Jefferson believed in the inferiority of AfricansPacridge said:The real "founders" of the constitution were Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and Adams. These men had more to do with the Constitution than anyone. And there wasn’t one of them that didn’t believe they were building a country based on Christian principles.
Welcome to Debate Politics!
Montalban said:Jefferson believed in the inferiority of Africans
“Inferiority was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, and even John Locke ...(who) did not hesitate to defend slavery in his draft of the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina.”, Carroll, V & Shiflett, D “Christianity on Trial: Arguments against anti-religious Bigotry”, p31.
The atheist liberal; Locke who helped draft a constitution too, established slavery. “ he wrote the “Fundamental Constitutions for the Government of Carolina” in 1669”... “Black chattel slavery received particular sanction and protection under Locke's law: “
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html
I started off here by re-presenting my material with proper attribution. I do this, because I almost missed that it was me you were asking for a response.Kenneth T. Cornelius said:In regard to the characteristics of the people, notice that what is stressed here is the lack of reasons for disagreement rather than the virtue of being English and speaking English and so forth. Jay would doubtless have written much the same had the country's inhabitants been Turks, except that the proposed form of the new government would certainly have been different. The key words here are same and similar. Therefore when Jay writes of the people professing the same religion he is not expressing any value judgement on religion, its necessity or irrelevance. He is merely eliminating it as a source of contention. There is nothing here to indicate that he thinks America should be governed by Christian principles.
:drink
Christianity or more generally religion, can be either a source of unity or dissent. Jay seemed to regard it as the later, as do I.PatriotSon said:While you present an interesting, and well spoken point of view, I feel your scope of your assertion is rather narrow. While I will concede to you the fact that our nation was not formed with intent to specify Christian religion as dominant, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that we are a nation founded out of Christian ideals, and with intent to build the nation on a foundation of religious principles.
PatriotSon said:with the Christian faith being almost exclusive in early colonial America, I think it would be foolish to believe the framers set out to remove faith or Christian belief from government. It would require they abandon foundational principals and concepts of the time.
What I believe is the framers had a serious problem with the Catholic Church in England. Many of them, sought relief from religious persecution in America. Realizing the danger of having strong religious influence in government, they sought to protect the new government, by limiting its ability to adopt any one religion as dominant. They did this by telling the government they could not pass any laws concerning religion. This in effect protected the government from itself. I do not believe the framers intended for this to be interpreted as a “separation of church and state” the way we understand it today. Had they believed this, it would have eliminated such practices as, formal prayer before session, placing the Ten Commandments in government offices and Buildings, placing religious symbols on city charters, and even referring to a belief in God on our currency.
It is clear, if not by their words, then by their actions, that the framers intended God and religious principals to play in integral part in government. .
Thanks for writing that, pooch.Stray Pooch said:Your points here are well made. I think the issue for most of the framers in terms of religious faith was not Catholicism (which had been all but stamped out in English discourse a century or more before) nor even the dominant Anglican church, but rather a singular favoritism for any one sect or faith. etc...
PatriotSon said:...I think it would be foolish to believe the framers set out to remove faith or Christian belief from government.
PatriotSon said:...placing the Ten Commandments in government offices and Buildings, placing religious symbols on city charters, and even referring to a belief in God on our currency.
alex said:Then where is it in our Constitution? If the framers did not set out to remove Christian belief from our government, then where is it?
The constitution, by design, is a work left open for interpretation. I believe this was done in order to limit government. The fact that the constitution does not expressly mention a divine influence, in no way implies the founders did not have one. In order to determine the founders true intent, one must study their individual writings, and understand the complex and fragile world in which the authors lived. I believe, after careful and diligent study, that the majority of the founders (50 of the 54) indeed held a principle of Christian belief. And the values expressed by their religion, they sought to place as pillars of their new democracy. This does not mean that they intended for this to be a Christian nation, but it does mean they believed a set of core values, such as those expressed in the Christian faith, were necessary for a sound government.
Many here on this forum, have expressed disagreement with my opinion, they have provided, in my opinion, a sound argument based on their own factual understanding of the time. I respect their opinion, and will continue to research and study. However, I give very little weight to these “one sentence” rebuttals that plague this forum. I show a lack of learned understanding of the topic. And I end up wasting time explaining my opinion to someone who could not possibly understand the level of understanding I, or others on the forum have on this subject.
Fantasea said:Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress has never made a law respecting an establishment of religion. This point has, quite clearly, been observed.
....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. With respect to Congress, this point has, also quite clearly, been observed.
The courts, on the other hand, have frequently held that the free exercise of religion by one group in public may be found to be objectionable by another group, and have thereby prohibited the free exercise of religion by the one so as not to offend the other.
The conduct you describe has been regulated by individual states according to the will of the people. The courts have long held that community standards may vary and states may accommodate the wishes of its residents9TH said:Perhaps by you. There have been many laws enacted throughout our history which stem exclusively from the religious beliefs of the majority. (proscriptions against certain consentual sex acts, prostitution, gay marriage, Sunday blue laws, etc.) By passing such laws, government has established religion.Originally Posted by Fantasea
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress has never made a law respecting an establishment of religion. This point has, quite clearly, been observed.
Once more, you make reference to state regulations. And, yes, the states also regulate against against human sacrifices, polygamy, and numerous voodoo practices..Again, not so. There have been laws against the religious drug use of Native Americans, Laws against sacrifices of the Santa Ria (sp?) sect, etc.Quote:
....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. With respect to Congress, this point has, also quite clearly, been observed.
When the starting five can't kneel on the gym floor before the game, join hands and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer injury, there's a problem..Actually, the courts have ruled (not often enough for me) that if the public expression can be seen to be government sponsored, then it is unconstitutional. ( for instance - A child can pray privately in school, but if that prayer is guided or encouraged by the school, it is not permitted.) Where's the problem?Quote:
The courts, on the other hand, have frequently held that the free exercise of religion by one group in public may be found to be objectionable by another group, and have thereby prohibited the free exercise of religion by the one so as not to offend the other
Nowhere. However, Section 8 of Article 1 contains this clause:Two questions -
1. Can anyone tell me exactly which Christian values from the Bible are enshrined in the Constitution? I've never seen any. On the contrary, I find many things in the Constitution to be quite the opposite of biblical teachings.
I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"2. I often hear religious people say that the government can establish and recognize religion itself as long as it doesn't give preference to one faith over others. If that is so, shouldn't the founders have put "a" between the words "of" and "religion" in the text of the 1st Amendment?
While it's true that many of these laws are at the State level, the courts have also long held that the will of the majority cannot be excercised if it tramples on the rights of the minority. The laws against Santa Ria (animal) sacrifices were, I believe, struck down precisely because there was no showing that the law served any purpose other than excluding the practice on religious grounds.Fantasea said:The conduct you describe has been regulated by individual states according to the will of the people. The courts have long held that community standards may vary and states may accommodate the wishes of its residents. Once more, you make reference to state regulations. And, yes, the states also regulate against against human sacrifices, polygamy, and numerous voodoo practices.
And those who complain about God being in the pledge and on our money are accused of worrying about nothing? Can there be any more irrelevent "problem" than praying at sporting events? Sporting envents, for God's sake! The point though is that religious rituals should not be at government sponsored events.Fantasea said:When the starting five can't kneel on the gym floor before the game, join hands and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer injury, there's a problem.
Yes, and the Bill of Rights was intended to put limits on these powers. Is this not so?Fantasea said:Nowhere. However, Section 8 of Article 1 contains this clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
It is this empowerment which enables Congress to establish laws. If one lays a copy of a law which regulates behavior beside a copy of the Ten Commandments, one will find that the heart of the law embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments. This usually results in a chicken or egg argument, or one of whether the similarity is intentional or coincidental.
Fantasea said:I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"
If all groups have equal access, then no one's rights are being trampled.9TH said:While it's true that many of these laws are at the State level, the courts have also long held that the will of the majority cannot be excercised if it tramples on the rights of the minority. The laws against Santa Ria (animal) sacrifices were, I believe, struck down precisely because there was no showing that the law served any purpose other than excluding the practice on religious grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The conduct you describe has been regulated by individual states according to the will of the people. The courts have long held that community standards may vary and states may accommodate the wishes of its residents. Once more, you make reference to state regulations. And, yes, the states also regulate against against human sacrifices, polygamy, and numerous voodoo practices.
This flies in the face of your preceding complaint. Why should the rights of the minority group of five be trampled by a larger group in the audience who may find their public prayer offensive?.And those who complain about God being in the pledge and on our money are accused of worrying about nothing? Can there be any more irrelevent "problem" than praying at sporting events? Sporting envents, for God's sake! The point though is that religious rituals should not be at government sponsored events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
When the starting five can't kneel on the gym floor before the game, join hands and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer injury, there's a problem.
This is the first time I have ever come across a statement that the Bill of Rights imposes limitations.Yes, and the Bill of Rights was intended to put limits on these powers. Is this not so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Nowhere. However, Section 8 of Article 1 contains this clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
It is this empowerment which enables Congress to establish laws. If one lays a copy of a law which regulates behavior beside a copy of the Ten Commandments, one will find that the heart of the law embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments. This usually results in a chicken or egg argument, or one of whether the similarity is intentional or coincidental.
And while many, if not most, laws may have roots in some religious morality, they also must be shown to have civil/secular justifications or they are simply the imposition of a certain faith on the whole of the nation. (re: Santa Ria) Would it be proper for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Commandments to become laws? I think not. They would serve no purpose other than religious indoctrination. (hope my count is right.)
Religion is religion. So long as Congress ignores the matter of religion entirely, how can it go wrong?The "beef," like I said, is that the 1st prohibits the "establishment of religion" period, not just the "establishment of [a] religion". There's a big difference, one that I believe is intentional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"
So, then, are you saying that Congress SHOULD get involved and make some laws with respect to the regulation of religion?galenrox said:Because if congress ignores it, but other government associated groups don't, that leads to problems.
It is this empowerment which enables Congress to establish laws. If one lays a copy of a law which regulates behavior beside a copy of the Ten Commandments, one will find that the heart of the law embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments. This usually results in a chicken or egg argument, or one of whether the similarity is intentional or coincidental.I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"[/QUOTE]Fantasea said:The conduct you describe has been regulated by individual states according to the will of the people. The courts have long held that community standards may vary and states may accommodate the wishes of its residentsOnce more, you make reference to state regulations. And, yes, the states also regulate against against human sacrifices, polygamy, and numerous voodoo practices.
When the starting five can't kneel on the gym floor before the game, join hands and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer injury, there's a problem.Nowhere. However, Section 8 of Article 1 contains this clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
It is this empowerment which enables Congress to establish laws. If one lays a copy of a law which regulates behavior beside a copy of the Ten Commandments, one will find that the heart of the law embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments. This usually results in a chicken or egg argument, or one of whether the similarity is intentional or coincidental.I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?