• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Freedom of Religion? or freedom FROM Religion?

knsellout said:
Where is the government supposed to stand in respect to religion?

The left often says that Religion should be banished from public offices.

The Right say that we as a population should be making religion a larger part of our community and lives.


I say that Freedom of religion means that NO particular religion should be given any more credit publicly by any government office.

I don't have a problem with prayer in school, as long as each religion can pray in their respectful way.

if you give the Xtians a chapel, give the buddhists a shrine as well.

To continue with that, then you would have to give Satanists the opportunity to worship in their fashion, Voudun practitioners to follow their worship ceremonies, etc., etc., etc. If a religion doesn't have a tradition of silent prayer, what is your solution? Do you think that they should still be allowed to follow their beliefs, or should we discriminate against them?
 
Apostle13 said:
So long as the church remains a unified and viable force, legislation will be morally reflected/affected. As we do vote in accordance to our convictions. Not all, but the most agree conservatively. This is the power of unity I alluded to in post #7.
Political Science 101
Which church remain unified?
When you start legislating on behalf of religion, just which religion are you going to legislate on behalf of? Any legistlation on one relgion is going to suppress the freedom of another religion. Catholicism vs Satanism (yes there are those that worship satan). Thus there is no way to have freedom of religion if you legislate on behalf of religion.
And again, there's a reason the establishment clause is refered to as the establishment clause.
 
Apostle13 said:
This is why I am concerned with these newly democratic formations. Afghanistan and Iraq in specific... Seems there is a generalized hostility toward tolerance of anything outside of Islam. With little/no constitutional provision/protection of other religions.
This is exactly why no state should ever be goverened by sectarian laws. Afganistan, the guy converted to christianity and was condemned to the death penalty.
 
Apostle13 said:
Yes and so it does:roll:
1.The driving force of democracy is majority.

Which is why we are a republic, to help prevent mob-rule.

Apostle13 said:
2.We were founded/constitutionally adhered, by a Christian Judeo society of men (forefathers).

So? They were very careful to set up a secular government structure. They recognized the dangers of combining religion and government.

Apostle13 said:
3.This setting was their then present basis of a more specific majority. Hence, moral.

A "more specific majority"? A majority is a majority. The only way that I can think of to make it "more specific" would be through discrimination.

Apostle13 said:
Although now marginally diluted / eroded, it is yet still, a reckoned force. This is the power and epitome of unity...
"The United States of America"

Founded as a secular society.

Apostle13 said:
Social depravity will ultimately become our uttermost reason to demise.

Well, since depravity is a relative term, this is, essentially, a meaningless statement. To many Muslims, not having a woman covered by a burkha (sp?) is a sign of depravity.

Apostle13 said:
For now there are yet many righteous in our midst.

Unfortunately, there are many of the self-righteous as well.

Apostle13 said:
In an instant there will be no more... Rapture!

Yeah, it's a nice story. Kind of reminds me of Ragnorak...
 
MrFungus420 said:
Which is why we are a republic, to help prevent mob-rule.
A majority rule... If it so happens said mob votes say Brando (Godfather rest his soul) into office then there is power and influence limited only by what office body/capacity and what majority of influence it contains.
MrFungus said:
So? They were very careful to set up a secular government structure. They recognized the dangers of combining religion and government.
So... This is a large part of a bigger argument... You are pitting foresight (their's) and hindsight (your own). I nearly agree but I also consider the times and equate that as part of their then reasoning. Drawing a separate, less absolute then your own, conclusion toward secularism considerations.
MrFungus said:
A "more specific majority"? A majority is a majority. The only way that I can think of to make it "more specific" would be through discrimination.
Moral majority is an evolutionary process in decline from the time of our forefathers until today... A fundamentalist view accurate and unafraid..:mrgreen:
MrFungus said:
Well, since depravity is a relative term, this is, essentially, a meaningless statement. To many Muslims, not having a woman covered by a burkha (sp?) is a sign of depravity.
And yet amazingly when they pierce our borders it becomes a non issue compromising their own convictions to pal out with societally,"The Great Satans." Hypocrites, are they not?
MrFungus said:
Unfortunately, there are many of the self-righteous as well.
If this is subtle implication it bears no weight of guilt here. In truth I am free. Otherwise... Agreed... "Many"
MrFungus said:
Yeah, it's a nice story. Kind of reminds me of Ragnorak...
While I am not familiar with this story. I was simply tossing into the mix a large and fundamentalist's point. Not meant for contentiousness. Rather edification among believers.
 
Last edited:
Apostle13 said:
If this is subtle implication it bears no weight of guilt here. In truth I am free. Otherwise... Agreed... "Many"

There was no personal slight intended.
 
State-sponsored religion leads to restriction of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution.
 
MrFungus420 said:
There was no personal slight intended.
I thought not, but weren't exactly sure... Pardon my suspiciousness.
 
alphamale said:
Baloney. The establishment clause, as the phrase would have been understood by the founders in the 18th century, prohibited an official state church like the Church of England. The founders routinely made references to God or religion in public settings, and would have been appalled at the present day PC anti-religious cleansing campaign. The requirement of the establishment clause is essentially that government be neutral and disinterested about religion.

How exactly do you know how it would have been understood by the founding fathers? At leaste, how do you have any more insight than anybody else in this matter? Should we let those who have been trained to do so (i.e. SC) do their jobs?
 
Apostle13 said:
I thought not, but weren't exactly sure... Pardon my suspiciousness.

No problem at all. It's perfectly understandable, after all, this is the type of thread that can get....heated, shall we say.
 
Originally Posted by ThePhoenix

I as a Christian, I claim the Right of my Liberty to speak to my Government and advise my Government on behalf of my Religion and my God. To say I cannot speak to as to make law is to deny me my fundamental right as an American. I reserve the Right of my Liberty to pray any place I choose, in any manner I chose. To deny me or anyone this Liberty is to deny our Right as Americans with a freedom to worship our God whenever we please.

You nor anyone of this world cannot, and will not take this from me. So I say to you, Give me the Liberty of Religion, or Give me Death.


You have all of these rights. Advise the government all you want, from your religious standpoint. Do it. It is legal.

Speak. Who said you can't speak so as to make law? Politicians do it every day. Laws are enacted in Congress based on legislation written by a huge majority of religious people. Their religions and moral bases form part of their thinking, and everything they do is partly based on those things, including lawmaking. Religion is a factor in most of the actions of Congress. And you can contact your Congressman and tell him what laws you want passed or not. It is legal.

You can, right now, pray. Wherever you are. Any time of the day or night you can pray, no matter where you happen to be at the time. You can worship your God whenever you please. You're right, no one can take that from you. Its an unalienable right. Feel free, nobody will arrest you.

Urge politicians to vote your way. But you shouldn't urge them to create laws favoring your religion. That would be UnAmerican. And pray freely. Why can't you? You can, of course, but I think what you're getting at is you want everybody in your presence to pray with you, even in taxpayer venues. Your worship shouldn't require that.

Your dramatic line at the end makes me think you think you are persecuted. You say you are a Christian. Aren't Christians the majority of the people in this country? Its hard to persecute a majority.
 
tryreading said:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenix

I as a Christian, I claim the Right of my Liberty to speak to my Government and advise my Government on behalf of my Religion and my God. To say I cannot speak to as to make law is to deny me my fundamental right as an American. I reserve the Right of my Liberty to pray any place I choose, in any manner I chose. To deny me or anyone this Liberty is to deny our Right as Americans with a freedom to worship our God whenever we please.

You nor anyone of this world cannot, and will not take this from me. So I say to you, Give me the Liberty of Religion, or Give me Death.


You have all of these rights. Advise the government all you want, from your religious standpoint. Do it. It is legal.

Speak. Who said you can't speak so as to make law? Politicians do it every day. Laws are enacted in Congress based on legislation written by a huge majority of religious people. Their religions and moral bases form part of their thinking, and everything they do is partly based on those things, including lawmaking. Religion is a factor in most of the actions of Congress. And you can contact your Congressman and tell him what laws you want passed or not. It is legal.

You can, right now, pray. Wherever you are. Any time of the day or night you can pray, no matter where you happen to be at the time. You can worship your God whenever you please. You're right, no one can take that from you. Its an unalienable right. Feel free, nobody will arrest you.

Urge politicians to vote your way. But you shouldn't urge them to create laws favoring your religion. That would be UnAmerican. And pray freely. Why can't you? You can, of course, but I think what you're getting at is you want everybody in your presence to pray with you, even in taxpayer venues. Your worship shouldn't require that.

Your dramatic line at the end makes me think you think you are persecuted. You say you are a Christian. Aren't Christians the majority of the people in this country? Its hard to persecute a majority.

Yeah, no kidding.
 
tryreading said:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenix

I as a Christian, I claim the Right of my Liberty to speak to my Government and advise my Government on behalf of my Religion and my God. To say I cannot speak to as to make law is to deny me my fundamental right as an American. I reserve the Right of my Liberty to pray any place I choose, in any manner I chose. To deny me or anyone this Liberty is to deny our Right as Americans with a freedom to worship our God whenever we please.

You nor anyone of this world cannot, and will not take this from me. So I say to you, Give me the Liberty of Religion, or Give me Death.


You have all of these rights. Advise the government all you want, from your religious standpoint. Do it. It is legal.

Speak. Who said you can't speak so as to make law? Politicians do it every day. Laws are enacted in Congress based on legislation written by a huge majority of religious people. Their religions and moral bases form part of their thinking, and everything they do is partly based on those things, including lawmaking. Religion is a factor in most of the actions of Congress. And you can contact your Congressman and tell him what laws you want passed or not. It is legal.

You can, right now, pray. Wherever you are. Any time of the day or night you can pray, no matter where you happen to be at the time. You can worship your God whenever you please. You're right, no one can take that from you. Its an unalienable right. Feel free, nobody will arrest you.

Urge politicians to vote your way. But you shouldn't urge them to create laws favoring your religion. That would be UnAmerican. And pray freely. Why can't you? You can, of course, but I think what you're getting at is you want everybody in your presence to pray with you, even in taxpayer venues. Your worship shouldn't require that.

Your dramatic line at the end makes me think you think you are persecuted. You say you are a Christian. Aren't Christians the majority of the people in this country? Its hard to persecute a majority.


:july_4th: :2usflag: :good_job: AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
 
alphamale said:
Ah yes, the famous Danbury letter. Number one, Jefferson, who became more anti-religious as he got older, was giving his opinion of the meaning of the clause - other constitutional convention members argued for years afterward about the exact meaning of what they had created.

His opinion of the clause, and he gave it more than once. Throughout his writings he railed about the problems of intermixing religion and government.

alphamale said:
Number two, Jefferson was using a metaphor - there is no proof or even indication that Jefferson's meaning in using that metaphor was the one of the current federal judiciary, in hijacking his particular phrase, that religion needed to be purged out of every government setting - there are many facts about the appearance of religion in government in Jefferson's time that show neither Jefferson's or the other Founders' sense of the clause was the anti-religious jihad of today. Otherwise, for just one of many examples, why would Jefferson refer to "Providence" in his very own inaugural speech?

Good metaphor. The establishment clause provides a 'wall of separation.' He didn't say it was 'a breezeway,' or 'a swinging gate,' or a 'fellow holding his hands out to deter you from intermixing church and state,' he said it was a 'wall of separation between church and state.' The phrase is straightforward.

He used 'providence,' President Bush says 'God Bless America.' There is nothing wrong with either. This is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
mnpollock said:
:july_4th: :2usflag: :good_job: AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

I agree: God Bless America, and God Bless the American People!
 
Jesus preached separation of church and state: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21 (KJV).
 
Ausonius said:
Jesus preached separation of church and state: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21 (KJV).

that passage was refering to paying taxes, not seperation of church and state.
 
It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Need must it be so, for there are no more queer ones than religion and politics.
 
star2589 said:
that passage was refering to paying taxes, not seperation of church and state.
Not so, he says "things" and that is more than taxes. We owe allegiance to our government and should obey the laws of the land, even if our religion doesn't like the laws. If you choose to live a higher standard based on your religion, fine, as the law is often a minimum standard of behaviour. But to attack others for not believing as you is living a lower standard. Religionists should keep their religion to themselves. Jesus wants his followers to spread the word, but it is to be done with persuasion, not force.
 
ThePhoenix said:
I as a Christian, I claim the Right of my Liberty to speak to my Government and advise my Government on behalf of my Religion and my God. To say I cannot speak to as to make law is to deny me my fundamental right as an American. I reserve the Right of my Liberty to pray any place I choose, in any manner I chose. To deny me or anyone this Liberty is to deny our Right as Americans with a freedom to worship our God whenever we please.

Why should you get special dispensation? The Government is already restricting the way different religions can worship. To the Rastafarians, marujuana is a blessed sacrement, yet the government does not allow them to legally use it. Peyote use allows Native Americans to contact the spiritual plane in their religioius observances, yet the government doesn't allow them to legally use it. The Mormons are not allowed polygamy by the government, even though many of them consider it entirely proper according to their beliefs.

ThePhoenix said:
You nor anyone of this world cannot, and will not take this from me. So I say to you, Give me the Liberty of Religion, or Give me Death.

Now that you know of a few of the ways in which the government is restricting the free expression of other religions, are you now going to start to fight for their Liberty of Religion to pray any place that they choose, in any manner that they choose? Or does that only apply to you?
 
MrFungus420 said:
Why should you get special dispensation? The Government is already restricting the way different religions can worship. To the Rastafarians, marujuana is a blessed sacrement, yet the government does not allow them to legally use it. Peyote use allows Native Americans to contact the spiritual plane in their religioius observances, yet the government doesn't allow them to legally use it. The Mormons are not allowed polygamy by the government, even though many of them consider it entirely proper according to their beliefs.



Now that you know of a few of the ways in which the government is restricting the free expression of other religions, are you now going to start to fight for their Liberty of Religion to pray any place that they choose, in any manner that they choose? Or does that only apply to you?

Um... i believe his intent was to show that he can worship all he wants and the gov't isn't stopping him.
 
alphamale said:
Baloney. The establishment clause, as the phrase would have been understood by the founders in the 18th century, prohibited an official state church like the Church of England. The founders routinely made references to God or religion in public settings, and would have been appalled at the present day PC anti-religious cleansing campaign. The requirement of the establishment clause is essentially that government be neutral and disinterested about religion.


The "No Official Sstate Church" Interpretation Of The Establishment Clause Is Federalist Hogwash! – Says James Madison

Federalists, Counterfeit Christians and other scoundrels wishing to effect an Unholy Union between Church and State have been trying to foist the “No Federally Established Religion” interpretation of the establishment clause upon the American people since it was formulated by the Evil Spirit and issued to Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) twenty-two years after the First Amendment was written. Laban Wheaton was a Federalist who made no secret of his desire for the government to assume civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. The first phase of his devilish scheme was to expand the two Congressional Chaplainships to impose a government established religion over the ten miles square of the District of Columbia.

Wheaton and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madison’s 1811 veto of a bill incorporating an Episcopal Church in Alexandria in the District of Columbia. President Madison believed the bill established rules and procedures, that could not be amended by the church, to govern the selection and removal of the minister of the church. Madison claimed it violated the establishment clause.

Wheaton argued that Madison's view of the establishment clause was wrong because Congress had already established two religions “by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains.” Wheaton deemed the meaning of the establishment clause to be of very great consequence. [Note 1}

Representative Wheaton complained, on the floor of the House during the debate regarding the veto, that the people of the District of Columbia were never going to have any religion because it had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District. Wheaton held the twisted view that religion established by the people or by God (instead of the government) was not really religion.

James Madison, according to his later writings, actually agreed with Wheaton that Congress had (improperly) established two religions in 1789 by creating the Congressional Chaplainships. Madison was decades ahead of most American's thinking with regard to religious liberty and perceived evil lurking under the plausible disguise of the Congressional Chaplains. Madison was a genuine Christian and knew that the serpent was very subtle and the wicked one grows his evil up from small beginnings.

Madison realized that setting up an official national religion would require four steps: 1) the selection of a group of Americans to be subjected to the establishment, 2) selection of a religion for them, 3) election of some ministers of that religion and 4) making a law to establish the people's duty to support the ministers. The establishment of the Chaplainships was accomplished by taking all four steps.

To James Madison and many others, the only difference in the two Congressional religions established in 1789 and an official establishment of a national religion, was the number of ministers that had to be supported by the taxpayers and the number of Americans covered by the establishment. Madison feared that every provision short of the strict Christian principle of Separation of Religion and Government would leave crevices through which evil men (like Roy Moore, David Barton and D. James Kennedy) would attempt to introduce their seeds of bigotry to grow into persecution which Madison believed was like a monster, that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

Fortunately James Madison was transformed into Superman when the rights of conscience were under attack. The same House of Representatives that voted 100 to 0 to pass the bill that Madison vetoed, voted 71 to 29 to sustain the Presidents veto. The “No National Church” Interpretation was rejected in favor of the “Total Separation of Religion and Government” interpretation of the President. James Madison was thus installed as the authority on the meaning of the religion clauses.

During the Early Days of the Grand and Glorious Republic it was always James Madison's interpretation of the establishment clause that eventually prevailed in every dispute over its meaning. These early Church State disputes included the following:

Presidential Religious Recommendations

James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper prevailed in 66 of the first 74 years of the young Republic. President Madison himself made the mistake of trying to accommodate Congressional requests for proclamations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his four proclamations employed a form and language meant to stifle any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting his recommendation expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion. [Note 2]
 
The consequence of Madison's wartime proclamations were malice and bitterness. In 1832 Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York recalled, in a speech on the House floor, that the that the wartime political religious observances under state authority were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.”

A lesson was learned from President Madison’s mistake of mixing religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and schemed to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Congressional Prayer

Contrary to the widespread myth, there were no daily opening prayers in the First U S. Congress. If you know of any evidence of morning prayers in the official records of the First Congress, please tell me where it is.

Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance

There was a dispute over whether Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance obligated the government to support religion in the Ohio Territory. The U. S. Congress believed that it did not and several attempts to enact legislation to "give legal effect" to the “support of the gospel” interpretation of Article III never even made it out of committee.

Sunday Mail Delivery

The Sunday Mail dispute raged from 1810 to the development of the telegraph and railroad train systems. The subject of the controversy was an 1810 post office law that required the transportation and opening of the mail on Sundays. There were numerous attempts by the “Christian Party” to convince Congress to repeal the 1810l law, but they all failed. Representative Colonel Johnson of Kentucky, chairman of the House Post Office Committee, issued a famous report in 1830 that adopted James Madison’s view that religion was exempt from the cognizance of the government. One of the many petitions from citizens supporting the 1810 Post Office law declared that the establishment clause was intended to, “Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence of any kind.”

Ten Commandment Displays in Federal Courts

The 1789 Judiciary Act did not include a requirement for the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts. I am not convinced that such a suggestion was actually introduced in Congress.

During the Early Years of the Republic (1789 to 1860) there were no disputes over “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the nations coins or government displays of the Ten Commandments. The Federal Government respected God’s authority over the conscience of men and refrained from using its legislative authority to issue religious advice to the people.

Notes​

[Note 1]: The establishment of the Congressional Chaplains was supported by some Congressmen to merely undermine the Separation of Church and State or to convince gullible constituents that the Congressmen were Christians. The Congressional Chaplains were clearly not established because the Congressmen were pious Christians who wanted to attend religious services conducted by the Chaplains. By all accounts, only a very few Congressmen actually attended the Chaplain’s services.

[Note 2] In 1812, it had been twenty-three years since Congress had requested the President to issue a religious recommendation. This strongly suggests that the First Congress did not believe that government religious recommendations were a wholesome practice except in extraordinary rare circumstances. Congress did not request the proclamations issued by John Adams.

Sources of Information:

Read Laban Wheaton’s argument for the No National Religion interpretation at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=489

Read the official record of the 71 to 29 vote in 1811 in the House of Representatives in favor of James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=496

Read New York Representative Gulion Verplacnk’s 1832 speech on the subject of Presidential Religious Recommendations at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=013/llrd013.db&recNum=490

Read the 1801 petition citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, in the Northwest Territory praying for the support of the Gospel and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=010/llac010.db&recNum=435

Read about the 1802 announcement of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut that he would ask leave to bring in a bill the nest day to carry into effect the support for schools and religion in the Northwestern Territory. The official records show that Tracy did not attempt to introduce the bill. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=011/llac011.db&recNum=8

Read about the 1802 appointment of a House committee to inquire into the matter of support of religion within the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio. The committee never reported the question to the floor.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...aw:18:./temp/~ammem_x5qA::#0040069&linkText=1

Read about the Bill reported out of committee (but not passed) in 1828 that would have authorized the use of federal land in the State of Ohio for the support of religion.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...aw:32:./temp/~ammem_pzaN::#0210199&linkText=1
 
FredFlash said:
The consequence of Madison's wartime proclamations were malice and bitterness. In 1832 Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York recalled, in a speech on the House floor, that the that the wartime political religious observances under state authority were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.”

A lesson was learned from President Madison’s mistake of mixing religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and schemed to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Congressional Prayer

Contrary to the widespread myth, there were no daily opening prayers in the First U S. Congress. If you know of any evidence of morning prayers in the official records of the First Congress, please tell me where it is.

Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance

There was a dispute over whether Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance obligated the government to support religion in the Ohio Territory. The U. S. Congress believed that it did not and several attempts to enact legislation to "give legal effect" to the “support of the gospel” interpretation of Article III never even made it out of committee.

Sunday Mail Delivery

The Sunday Mail dispute raged from 1810 to the development of the telegraph and railroad train systems. The subject of the controversy was an 1810 post office law that required the transportation and opening of the mail on Sundays. There were numerous attempts by the “Christian Party” to convince Congress to repeal the 1810l law, but they all failed. Representative Colonel Johnson of Kentucky, chairman of the House Post Office Committee, issued a famous report in 1830 that adopted James Madison’s view that religion was exempt from the cognizance of the government. One of the many petitions from citizens supporting the 1810 Post Office law declared that the establishment clause was intended to, “Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence of any kind.”

Ten Commandment Displays in Federal Courts

The 1789 Judiciary Act did not include a requirement for the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts. I am not convinced that such a suggestion was actually introduced in Congress.

During the Early Years of the Republic (1789 to 1860) there were no disputes over “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the nations coins or government displays of the Ten Commandments. The Federal Government respected God’s authority over the conscience of men and refrained from using its legislative authority to issue religious advice to the people.

Notes​

[Note 1]: The establishment of the Congressional Chaplains was supported by some Congressmen to merely undermine the Separation of Church and State or to convince gullible constituents that the Congressmen were Christians. The Congressional Chaplains were clearly not established because the Congressmen were pious Christians who wanted to attend religious services conducted by the Chaplains. By all accounts, only a very few Congressmen actually attended the Chaplain’s services.

[Note 2] In 1812, it had been twenty-three years since Congress had requested the President to issue a religious recommendation. This strongly suggests that the First Congress did not believe that government religious recommendations were a wholesome practice except in extraordinary rare circumstances. Congress did not request the proclamations issued by John Adams.

Sources of Information:

Read Laban Wheaton’s argument for the No National Religion interpretation at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=489

Read the official record of the 71 to 29 vote in 1811 in the House of Representatives in favor of James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=496

Read New York Representative Gulion Verplacnk’s 1832 speech on the subject of Presidential Religious Recommendations at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=013/llrd013.db&recNum=490

Read the 1801 petition citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, in the Northwest Territory praying for the support of the Gospel and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=010/llac010.db&recNum=435

Read about the 1802 announcement of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut that he would ask leave to bring in a bill the nest day to carry into effect the support for schools and religion in the Northwestern Territory. The official records show that Tracy did not attempt to introduce the bill. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=011/llac011.db&recNum=8

Read about the 1802 appointment of a House committee to inquire into the matter of support of religion within the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio. The committee never reported the question to the floor.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=004/llhj004.db&recNum=68&itemLink=D?hlaw:18:./temp/~ammem_x5qA::%230040069&linkText=1

Read about the Bill reported out of committee (but not passed) in 1828 that would have authorized the use of federal land in the State of Ohio for the support of religion.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=021/llhj021.db&recNum=198&itemLink=D?hlaw:32:./temp/~ammem_pzaN::%230210199&linkText=1

Good post, very well written. Welcome to the forum:2wave:
but :fyi: you're preaching to the choir.
 
Saint George Tucker On Liberty Of Conscience - 1803

Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinions, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention of any human power or authority whatsoever.

Jesus Christ has established a perfect equality among his followers. His command is, that they shall assume no jurisdiction over one another, and acknowledge no master besides himself. It is, therefore, presumption in any of them to claim a right to any superiority or pre-eminence over their brethren.

Not only all christians, but all men of all religions, ought to be considered by a state as equally entitled to its protection, as far as they demean themselves honestly and peaceably.

Genuine religion is a concern that lies entirely between God and our own souls. It is incapable of receiving any aid from human laws. It is contaminated as soon as worldly motives and sanctions mix their influence with it. Statesmen should countenance it only by exhibiting, in their own example, a conscientious regard to it in those forms which are most agreeable to their own judgments, and by encouraging their fellow citizens in doing the same. They cannot, as public men, give it any other assistance. All, besides, that has been called a public leading in religion, has done it an essential injury, and produced some of the worst consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom