Is the separation of church and state a lie?

[tellner]

Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Henry (just to name a few) weren't Christian or even friendly to Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. Even the ministers in the crowd went along with the idea that religion - not religious people but religion - needed to be kept out of the government. In fact, the President of Yale was shocked and disgusted that Yeshu ben Miriam didn't make it into the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. He thought it showed moral degeneracy of the worst sort.

 

[dgb]

tcgeol-
If you had read the entire thread before posting you would see that my comments were in direct response to
previous posts re "secular humanism", such as those made by Kim and GoRon for example.

All-
Sticking to the original quotations that started this thread, we do not have a case of someone wishing to legislate or push secular humanism on others. We have a case where an avowed Christian running for US Senate is claiming that electing people who are Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular humanists, etc in their private lives will result in all said people legislating sin.

I fail to see the threat to Christians in this particular case. I'm not saying Christians haven't been treated unfairly. However what Ms. Harris is espousing is for people not to elect Jews or anyone else who isn't Christian like she is.

I hear very few people disagreeing w/ her on this second point. That leaves me no other option but to believe those who are silent don't disagree w/ her.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Ok, if Washington wasn't a Christian or even friendly to Christianity, then why was he a member of the Church of England in Virginia, which soon after became the Protestant Episcopal Church, which he still retained membership in? How about Samuel Adams, Carter Braxton, William Emery, Charles Carroll, Josiah Bartlett, Abraham Clark, George Clymer, William Floyd, Elbridge Gerry, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, John Hancock, John Hart, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Francis Hopkinson, Samuel Huntington, Philip Livingston, Thomas McKean, John Morton, William Paca, Robert Treat Paine, George Read, Caesar Rodney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge, Roger Sherman, James Smith, Richard Stockton, Thomas Stone, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, George Walton, William Whipple, William Williams, John Witherspoon, Oliver Wolcott, and George Wythe?

All of these signers of the declaration were members of a Christian church. Out of 56 signers, only 3 were openly deist, and 1 of those had affiliation with a church, and 12 of those had no affiliation, and 1, John Adams, had a church affiliation but was a unitarian as well. So, 44-45 of the 56 signers of the declaration were professing Christians. Don't sit there and tell me that they weren't Christians, and that they had no like for Christianity.


Source: A Theological Miscellany by T.J. McTavish
(Basically, it's a book that lists random facts about Christianity)

 

[tellner]

Sola, it was socially necessary to be a member of the "right" churches if you were in that social class. You will also note that he said that "not one good thing" could be said about the Christian religion, that he was a Mason at a time when it was considered anti-Christ and also wrote of G-d as one "who if He does not exist we should have to create".

The revisionist historians keep trying to make the founding of the US some sort of grand Christ-fest complete with the Constitution being decided on after group prayer. It wasn't. The founders included religious people, but they shared a hostility towards the establishment of a religion, any religion, as part of the governance of the new nation.

As to your screen name, I'd really recommend that you take a look at Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The author is a born-again Christian who attended fundamentalist Bible College and Wheaton before going on to the Princeton Theological Seminary. He's an expert in early biblical texts and is probably the only person in the world with the passion to make textual analysis of early Christian apologetics and apocalypses fascinating. He makes a very strong case that the idea of biblical inerrancy or the perfection of the mythical lost "first manuscripts" is a pipe dream.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

They use the technique of the Big Lie, Soviet or Nazi style, to keep repeating something that is simply not true long enough that the ignorant start to believe it.

You mean kind of like the myth that all the founding fathers were Christian?

It always amazes me how folks who repeat this myth ignore the ones that were Deists. Ya know, Jefferson implied that he did not believe in the divinty of Jesus. But hey, the truth that some of these gentlemen were Deists doesn't really matter, right?

 

[SolaScriptura139]

The founders included religious people, but they shared a hostility towards the establishment of a religion, any religion, as part of the governance of the new nation.

I'm not arguing that point. I agree that they did not want an established religion from the gov't. I'm simply pointing out that it is wrong for people to say that the founders were not Christian. The vast majority of them claimed to be Christian by their affiliation with churches. Obviously there were non-Christians among them. And by the way, do you have any citations for you're stated position that you had to be "in" with the right churches for social class?

As to your screen name, I'd really recommend that you take a look at Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

As for my screen name and my personal beliefs, they are off-topic. I'm very secure in my belief in "Sola Scriptura", or "Scripture Alone". I have my reasons for it, and rest assured, I have well researched the topic. I will neither go on about this or defend my position, because this is a gun and civil rights forum, not a theology debate.

 

[tellner]

It's more that you might be interested in the issues that a committed Christian brings up as opposed to what a non-believer would say. He makes some very interesting points about things that people take for granted and gives an excellent historical context for what was included, why and how it changed over just a couple hundred years. Interesting stuff even for non-Christians.

 

[gc70]

From the Library of Congress

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Thomas Jefferson permitted church services in government buildings and attended those services himself. Jefferson's actions appear to be at odds with what some interpret him to have meant when he used the phrase "wall of separation" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

For those who believe that Jefferson thought the Constitution mandated an impermeable wall of separation between church and state, did Jefferson intentionally violate the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Or, is it possible that what Jefferson meant has been misinterpreted?

 

[Kim]

Like you point out it is a legal myth. A myth adopted in the 20th century after decades of ACLU law suits leading up to decision to ban prayer. It took a very liberal court also. The time was right for the myth to become law. But even then the reason it was able to be done in a slippery slope method is the FEDS were not involved at the beginning in all aspects of our life. Now they are thanks to the same liberal Judges. I remember when it was determined that the school bus I rode on could not longer pick up the Catholic kids and drop them off on the way to the public school as the ACLU decided that was establishing a religion. It was hurtful to those kids at the time I am sure. No one had EVER thought anything about it. I mean we just never stopped anymore. I guess that extra 25 cents of gas from the stopping and starting and the wear and tear on those seats they set on in the government bus was just to much for the ACLU. After all the USA had a established religion up until that time apparently. The Catholic kids did not get push to sit in the back of the bus they got kicked off the bus.

 

[tellner]

Oh yes, the horrible ACLU. Those terrible people (Jews, that's the secret unspoken part) who took Jesus out of the schools. Well, he didn't belong there to begin with. Much as the theocrats and Know Nothings would like to pretend otherwise State-sponsored prayer is the establishment of a religion.

The evil liberals didn't "ban prayer". There is absolutely no law or Supreme Court ruling that says "Children are not permitted to pray". What there has been is a series of decisions that says "The State is not allowed to use its coercive power to force people to support or mouth the prayers of a State-established official Church".

The buses couldn't take Catholic students to school anymore? Garbage. Catholics could still ride the bus. They just couldn't ride it on the tax-payer's dime to an explicitly religious institution. If little Muslim children were delivered to the Madrassa al-Jihad or tiny tot Satanists to the Anton LaVey Academy of Black Magic you would probably give birth to a porcupine. Breech presentation. "No establishment of religion" means "No establishment of religion. Not even mine."

The problem is that the fundies and the witch-burners really hate that idea down at the bottom. They want freedom to practice their religion and freedom for everyone else to practice their religion. State sponsorship seems to be just fine as long as it's evangelical Protestantism. Turn around for just a minute and they've taken a saw to science and a meat-axe to history.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Much as the theocrats and Know Nothings ...
the fundies and the witch-burners...

Wow, here's a great way to bolster your argument, revert to childish name calling.

Turn around for just a minute and they've taken a saw to science and a meat-axe to history.

Actually, most Evangelicals that I hear and read embrace science, just not evolution. You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious to not accept evolution, as there are scientific reasons for objecting to it. And I would personally like you to show me how evangelicals have "taken a meat-axe to history." I guess it's easy to make extreme statements when you're ranting.

 

[Kaylee]

Namecalling stops NOW

 

[gc70]

The buses couldn't take Catholic students to school anymore? Garbage. Catholics could still ride the bus. They just couldn't ride it on the tax-payer's dime to an explicitly religious institution.

Wrong - Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township - 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Majority Opinion: (Justice Black) Paying for the busing of parochial school students does not breach the Establishment Clause. Even though the assistance might make parents more likely to send their children to such schools, the authorization does not unduly assist the schools. The policy is general because it applies to public and private school students and does not single out those attending religious schools. The funding of busing is similar to the public payment of policemen and firemen who protect parochial school students.

 

[RealGun]

Believing that busing was financed by school taxes, I think Justice Black overlooked the differences in how those services were funded, i.e busing, policemen, and firemen. The issue was not religion...not directly anyway. It was whether parochial school parents were contributing to the expense of providing the buses while claiming some entitlement to the service.

 

[Cromlech]

Strong issue here for you jerry cans, it seems.

I think that I got lost somewhere in this topic, are people wanting mandatory prayers, religious education and whatnot, or just the choice for their kids to do so in school?

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I think that I got lost somewhere in this topic, are people wanting mandatory prayers, religious education and whatnot, or just the choice for their kids to do so in school?

I only want the choice to do so for my child. It just seems when they banned mandatory prayer, the educators went crazy and banned all religious expression among students. When my wife was in high school (about 3 years ago), she was reprimanded for carrying a bible with her. ANY person wearing shirt of Christian expression was made to turn their shirt inside out. If this has happened among other public schools, you can see why there would be backlash to the ban on prayer.

 

[Cromlech]

I only want the choice to do so for my child.

That seems fair to me.

It just seems when they banned mandatory prayer, the educators went crazy and banned all religious expression among students. When my wife was in high school (about 3 years ago), she was reprimanded for carrying a bible with her.

That's certainly not fair at all.

In my humble opinion, so long as non-religious kids can be exempted from prayer and whatnot, and religious kids can pray et cetera, all is fine.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm somewhat religious, here's my take on this.

I know it's a hot topic and it's being done to death, but here's my opinion. The fact was established from our (U.S.) beginning that Congress could not establish a religion. The intent was to allow people to express their faith as they saw fit. Don't forget that a lot of the original settlers on this continent, after the indians, of course, came here to escape religious persecution.

Jefferson commented on a seperation of church and state. Taken in context, his words reinforce the comments by the founders and further convey that an elected official is not to use his position to effect de-facto legislation of religion.

This concept has been taken out of context and been used to literally outlaw the expression of ones faith in many places. A case of words being twisted to oppose their meaning.

I have a right to express my faith, as do you. We have the right to share our faith or not to. The knuckleheads who are at the head of this charge are seeking freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. I want to be left alone and not be cited for praying in a public place. I'd like to be able to carry my bible where I need to go without fear someone will see it and be "offended". I'd like to teach my son to take a moment to pray over important things without fear he'll wind up in trouble at school. I'd like to see Christmas light, Santa and a nativity scene in December without a lawyer screaming about some idiot who was "offended". I'd like to think that I'm a free American and can say and think what I want so long as I don't hurt anyone. The ACLU does not like any of the things I like.

So, yes. In the context and meaning it is construed today, the seperation of church and state is a lie. Anyone who loves their freedom had better look at the root issue, not whether they are religious or not. We are being told what is acceptable thought and action by a non-accountable and un-elected minority of lawyers and lobbyists. What's the next item on their agenda after they get rid of free expression of religion?

Rant over.

Cromlech, on this side of the pond the debate has gotten rather ludicrus. Outside of a few whackos who think the world is ending tomorrow and they're going to go to heaven on a comet, nobody is wanting to institute mandatory prayers or any other religious exercise. The agenda is being driven by our ACLU to make laws banning any religious expression, speech, display, etc. If it has anything to do with God, religion or anything remotely related, they want to literally outlaw it.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

And I would personally like you to show me how evangelicals have "taken a meat-axe to history."

Well for one thing they keep talking about the ten commandments. I count a whole bunch more than that...

Edited to add:

We have the right to share our faith or not to. The knuckleheads who are at the head of this charge are seeking freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. I want to be left alone and not be cited for praying in a public place.

Amen to the FROM and OF comment. But then I'd love to be left alone to pray in public without someone wanting to either convert or kill me.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I count a whole bunch more than that...

Actually, there are over 600 commandments in the Torah. But the Ten Commandments are a summary of the most important ones. But I really don't see how you can use that as an example of "taking a meat-axe" to history when you're talking theology, not history.

 

[Helmetcase]

No place have I advocated teaching or indoctrinating anyone in any religion at the taxpayers expense.

But you are suggesting that you don't have a problem with teachers, public officials, etc. supporting policies that include some sort of recognition of Christianity, aren't you? Which would be a clear violation of the "make no law respecting" clause.

On the other side we have a whole thread full of people who think it is just fine to indoctrinate our kids in a value free humanist world view, as long as it isn't religion.

Whatever the hell that is. What's the free humanist world view? I don't think kids should be indoctrinated one way or the other re: religious issues. Kids should learn their religious values at HOME. Not SCHOOL. Period.

Why you have a problem with that is beyond me. I think the last couple decades make it pretty clear that expecting kids to learn this sort of thing in school is a lost cause. School is not a substitute for parenting. No one thinks it is.

I don't want, nor I do think any school does, to have schools teach "free humanism" (whatever the hell that may be, sounds like something from far right wing AM radio late at night) or anything else--I just want them to not advocate or endorse any particular religious view.

If you can't understand that distinction, I feel sorry for you. Having schools be neutral on religion is NOT the same as trying to make them all card carrying athiests. It's simply leaving religious instruction up to the PARENTS and the FAMILY instead of the public sphere. You'd think all you anti-govt conservative types would be all over that. I wouldn't want a school teaching my kids religion these days, geeze.

How do you teach world affairs and current events without making value judgements?

Why do you need to have religion in schools to teach value judgments? You can have students examining complex ethical issues without delving into religion. Show me the current event or world affair that you can't teach properly without first having instructed the kids in Christianity. This ought to be rich.

How do you teach history without making value judgements about the figures in history.

You can make value judgments about them all day long. You don't need religion in public schools to do so.

By ignoring the role of religion in forming what our nation is an amoral philosophy has filled the void.

I don't think it's necessarily ignored, but I don't think amoral philosophy is accurate at all. You're suggesting you need to be religious in order to have morals. That's simply inaccurate. And frankly, insulting to those of us who aren't religious.

For instance, consider slavery. Do you need to be a Christian to see why it was wrong? Of course not. Consider the civil rights movement. Can an athiest understand why Jim Crow had to go? (Hell the people resisting the death of Jim Crow often guised their arguments in a religious context). Consider women's suffrage. Do you need to have Jesus in your heart to understand why women should get to vote?

In short, you do NOT need religious instruction to understand ethical issues.

Privatizing the whole affair will never happen, and would be disaster anyway, but that's another thread.

 

[DBabsJr]

I have a right to express my faith, as do you. We have the right to share our faith or not to. The knuckleheads who are at the head of this charge are seeking freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion.

With respect to our government and its laws, I personally would like to have freedom from religion. I think it's about choice and 'None of the Above' and 'None' should both be choices.

When my wife was in high school (about 3 years ago), she was reprimanded for carrying a bible with her.

Even after my statement above, I would fight this alongside of your wife. That's absolutely ridiculous. Within reason and as long as it affects no one else, I should be able to do what I want to do and so should everyone else.

FWIW...I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks to the mods for letting it go on.

 

[RealGun]

But you are suggesting that you don't have a problem with teachers, - Helmetcase

Just a comment on style. The continuous use of the word "you" is confrontational and I believe violates the guideline of debating ideas not personalities. I believe your entire post could be rewritten without much use, if any, of the word "you". The result would be much more worthy of being called the High Road and could also allow your posts to be taken more seriously, perhaps even get your subscriber name off someone's ignore list.

Also the injection of cuss words reflects anger, which is potentially inciting and is inelegant, sometimes crude. There must be a better way to calmly have a debate, even if frustrated or cynical in regard to other's thoughts.

FWIW

 

[1911 guy]

DBabsJr and Helmetcase

DBabsJr,
If I told you you had to become a (insert denomination) to avoid prosecution, that would violate your freedom of religion. Freedom means choosing to have or have not.
Telling someone else they cannot be a (insert denomination) is also a violation of freedom of religion.
Your stand, as your comments read, is that for you to have no religious faith is O.K., and others are required to do without as well. That may not be your thoughts, but it is the ACLU and others thoughts and they use the same words to promote their ideology. Demanding freedom for yourself means also giving freedom to those around you.

Helmetcase,
While I agree that values and religion should be tought at home, the real issue is an ongoing push to make our society and government hostile to religion. My fredom of religion means that I can believe what I want to, you have the same choice. Have a faith or don't, your call. However, the current fight being put up by the ACLU and various lobbyists would deny me the right to express my faith in any public place and in any circumstance.

 

[Helmetcase]

FWIW? Not much. I was addressing a point he in particular was making. While we strongly disagree, I don't think GoRon can mistake my asking for an explanation or clarification of what he in particular is saying on a point for some sort of personal insult. He's saying he's not saying something, I'm asking for a clearer understanding of what he is saying. Fair enough?

If there's anything in my posts that isn't worth taking seriously, I invite your explanation of just what that is (as though it's not confrontational to suggest that someone not be taken seriously).

Sorta contradictory to what my momma taught me about it being more important to be nice than right...how "right" you are isn't really dependent on how nice someone thinks you are. Even if you think I'm a big meanie head (and I really don't think I'm being all that mean to anyone--frankly I resent the implication, what I'm saying about the other side of the argument isn't any coarser than what's being said about humanists, the ACLU, etc), the point stands that we're a nation that believes in keeping religion in the private sphere without govt influence or endorsement.