S_O_Laban
Member
Excellent point HMG, one that like it or not needs to be reintroduced in our education system. Without higher authority (higher than man's) the only authority that matters is the one with the muscule to enforce it.
No God, No Rights? You betcha.
- Thread starter HGM
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Member
No, I don't see the significance, HGH.
Or I should say I do not automatically, as you seem to, attribute Moses' placement to an overtly religious statement. There's no evidence for it other than speculation, and if religious statements were the point of depiction, I seriously doubt that the other, non-Christians also depicted in the chamber, would have been included.
And, once again, I point to the lack of the 10 Commandments in Moses depcition. If this were truly a religious depiction, the 10 Commandments would be included. That way there would be no doubt about who the figure depicts (quite frankly, if you've ever seen the medallion from the floor of the Chamber, it's NOT easy to read the name if you're even any distance from it).
But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel?
After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver?
It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses.
Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy.
There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers.
If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.
Ergo, law existed before Moses.
The ONLY overt signifigance that can truly be given to this is that of the 23 lawgivers depicted in the carvings, Moses is the most recognizable to the most people.
Or I should say I do not automatically, as you seem to, attribute Moses' placement to an overtly religious statement. There's no evidence for it other than speculation, and if religious statements were the point of depiction, I seriously doubt that the other, non-Christians also depicted in the chamber, would have been included.
And, once again, I point to the lack of the 10 Commandments in Moses depcition. If this were truly a religious depiction, the 10 Commandments would be included. That way there would be no doubt about who the figure depicts (quite frankly, if you've ever seen the medallion from the floor of the Chamber, it's NOT easy to read the name if you're even any distance from it).
But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel?
After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver?
It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses.
Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy.
There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers.
If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.
Ergo, law existed before Moses.
The ONLY overt signifigance that can truly be given to this is that of the 23 lawgivers depicted in the carvings, Moses is the most recognizable to the most people.
Mike Irwin
Member
Oh, by the way...
Do you know when the 23 portraits of the lawgivers were placed in the House Chamber?
1950.
Over 100 years after the Chamber was first designed.
Based on the reasoning of your above statements, can it be inferred that the men who designed the original House Chambers, and who obviously omitted the depiction of Moses, were unreligious?
Do you know when the 23 portraits of the lawgivers were placed in the House Chamber?
1950.
Over 100 years after the Chamber was first designed.
Based on the reasoning of your above statements, can it be inferred that the men who designed the original House Chambers, and who obviously omitted the depiction of Moses, were unreligious?
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
It doesn't matter whether the Founders were Christians. (Actually, most of them were deists, which is where the "God of Nature" language in the preamble originates. The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.)
The fact is that they started this nation with a clean slate, and they had the opportunity to enshrine the Christian faith in the Constitution if they had wished to do so. But the Constitution of the United States does not mention God or Christianity once, and the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in a restrictive context, forbidding Congress from respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
The basis of this country is the Constitution, not the Bible. The notion that one derives from the other is not supported by the facts...in many cases, the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments are diametrically opposed to each other. (The first four Commandments don't even address interpersonal relationships, they are specific instructions for the worship of a particular god.) Heck, even the very first of the Ten Commandments is in conflict with the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
First Commandment:
"I am the LORD thy GOD. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
First Amendment:
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.
So, which is it? Worship Yahweh exclusively, or free exercise of any religion?
Only three of the Commandments, the ones dealing with homicide, theft, and perjury, have anything to do with current American law, and all three of these concepts have been enshrined in law long before Moses, for example in the Code of Hammurabi. Ethics and morals didn't just magically spring into existence when the Bible was written.
Oh, and the oath appendage "..so help me God" is completely optional, even in the Oath of Office of the President of the United States. It can be omitted if that is the oath taker's preference. In court, you can choose to affirm instead.
The fact is that they started this nation with a clean slate, and they had the opportunity to enshrine the Christian faith in the Constitution if they had wished to do so. But the Constitution of the United States does not mention God or Christianity once, and the only mention of religion in the Bill of Rights is in a restrictive context, forbidding Congress from respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.
The basis of this country is the Constitution, not the Bible. The notion that one derives from the other is not supported by the facts...in many cases, the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments are diametrically opposed to each other. (The first four Commandments don't even address interpersonal relationships, they are specific instructions for the worship of a particular god.) Heck, even the very first of the Ten Commandments is in conflict with the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
First Commandment:
"I am the LORD thy GOD. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
First Amendment:
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.
So, which is it? Worship Yahweh exclusively, or free exercise of any religion?
Only three of the Commandments, the ones dealing with homicide, theft, and perjury, have anything to do with current American law, and all three of these concepts have been enshrined in law long before Moses, for example in the Code of Hammurabi. Ethics and morals didn't just magically spring into existence when the Bible was written.
Oh, and the oath appendage "..so help me God" is completely optional, even in the Oath of Office of the President of the United States. It can be omitted if that is the oath taker's preference. In court, you can choose to affirm instead.
brookstexas
member
Misleading at best
is what your info is. Kind of like saying 90% of people in US prisons are Christians.
It's unimportant who was religious or how much. They agreed that religion and government should not mix.
-BT
is what your info is. Kind of like saying 90% of people in US prisons are Christians.
It's unimportant who was religious or how much. They agreed that religion and government should not mix.
-BT
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
whoa! whoa! whoa! i think its about time we discuss the role the Knights Templar have played in this issue...
hehehe....nevermind me, just pulling ya'lls leg a little.
hehehe....nevermind me, just pulling ya'lls leg a little.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Knights Templar..."
Aren't they related to the Knights Who Say Nicht?
Aren't they related to the Knights Who Say Nicht?
KpEng16
Member
Politics, Religion, and Women....the causes of many a debate!!
brookstexas says, "It's unimportant who was religious or how much. They agreed that religion and government should not mix."
----------------------------
-- This statement is blatantly false, and if you'd visited the link I provided at the beginning of this thread you'd know this to be the case. I agree, the Founders didn't want the FEDERAL government directly involved with religion directly, as in funding, but they certainly didn't have a problem with Christianity being practiced, taught, and promoted at the state and local level. In fact, they encouraged it. Go read the Northwest Ordinance.
One of the most detailed accounts on the subject is David Barton's "Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments" which can be seen here :
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41
To say that the Christian Faith had no impact and no influence on the development of our laws is absurd. After you've taken the time to research the history for yourself, you will realize this also.
HGM
----------------------------
-- This statement is blatantly false, and if you'd visited the link I provided at the beginning of this thread you'd know this to be the case. I agree, the Founders didn't want the FEDERAL government directly involved with religion directly, as in funding, but they certainly didn't have a problem with Christianity being practiced, taught, and promoted at the state and local level. In fact, they encouraged it. Go read the Northwest Ordinance.
One of the most detailed accounts on the subject is David Barton's "Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments" which can be seen here :
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41
To say that the Christian Faith had no impact and no influence on the development of our laws is absurd. After you've taken the time to research the history for yourself, you will realize this also.
HGM
Mike,
"HGH" ... you say? Was that a typo, or an insult?
Anyhow, you posted, "But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel? After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver? It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses. Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy. There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers. If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.
Ergo, law existed before Moses."
No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God.
HGM
"HGH" ... you say? Was that a typo, or an insult?
Anyhow, you posted, "But if the designers of the Chamber were truly bent on a religious, rather than legalistic, theme, then why did they choose Moses instead of a depiction of God himself, a la' the Sistine Chapel? After all, isn't God the ultimate religious figure as well as the ultimate law giver? It was, after all, God who gave the Commandments to Moses. Moses was, in essence, the messenger boy. There's also a problem with the concept of "all laws originating with Moses," in that Hammurabi is depicted as one of the lawgivers. If Biblical references are to be believed regarding Moses and the Exodus, Hammurabi lived almost 700 years BEFORE Moses.
Ergo, law existed before Moses."
No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God.
HGM
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
What kind of Christianity? Will you abide by laws made by a Pentecostal legislature? How about a Catholic one? Would you mind Lutherans practicing, teaching, and promoting their faith at your child's elementary school? Are you comfortable with Southern Baptist doctrine being made local law in your town? Or what about Mormon or Methodist doctrine?
As to your assertion that only the fed.gov is prohibited from interfering with religion, I have to point out that the States are bound by the Constitution. No State may pass a law that is contradictory to the supreme law of the land. It's like saying that only the federal government may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms, but that state and local governments are not bound by the Bill of Rights.
Whenever you openly mix religion with government, it degrades both. All our Congress members, our President, and all Supreme Court justices are declared Christians. The House and Senate start their sessions with prayers. Schoolchildren may exercise their religion freely, as long as it doesn't interfere with class work. There are churches on every street corner in this country. This is all fine and good, as long as no tax dollars are spent on religion, and no legislature makes its exercise mandatory.
Why, oh why, then, do you so desperately want the government to take sides in matters of religion? Can't you see that the only reason religion is flourishing in this country is because the government has to remain neutral in religious matters? Can't you see that the worst thing you can do to your religion is to give it government subsidies in any form? Can't you see that wherever State and Church have mixed in the past, religious strife was the result? Whenever the State takes sides and favors one religion, you automatically produce religious strife, because you give the majority religion legislative power over the minority religions. That's *precisely* what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Our law has some concepts in common with Mosaic law. It also has some things in common with Judaic law, Hammurabic law, and a zillion other law codes before and after Christianity. It also has many concepts that are nowhere to be found in the Bible or other contemporary holy books, and the Constitution often openly contradicts the Ten Commandments and other Christian tenets, as I've pointed out a few posts back.
Christianity had some impact and influence on our laws, but humanistic thought (the Constitution framers were greatly influenced by the Enlightenment period) had an equally great influence. The fact of the matter is that even with those commonalities, the Founding Fathers did *not* set this country up as a Christian theocracy, and they built specific safeguards into the Constitution to avoid giving *any* religion the power to legislate their creed into law for the other religions. The government of this country, at any level, needs to be neutral in religious matters, or it will mean the death of religious freedom and turn this country into Northern Ireland with Starbucks and Burger King.
Mike Irwin
Member
HGM,
How is HGH an insult?
It's a typo.
When you type 102 words a minute, things like that creep in every once in awhile, so relax. No insult was intended, or should be inferred.
"No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God."
Now you're really stretching.
You're only ASSUMING that the commandments are older than Moses, in fact as old as God, as if God simply whipped them out of his back pocket when he finally found a messenger boy nimble enough to carry the tablets off the mountain without dropping them.
That's like saying that, since I'm 38 years, old the salad I made this evening for my dinner is also 38 years old.
Once again, in your zeal to assign an overtly Christian (remember, Moses was a Jew, not a Christian) meaning to the placement of the depciting of Moses, you fail to take into account or attempt to explain:
1. That all the plaques depict law givers, not Christians. If this were truly a Christian effort, why then, isn't Jesus on the Cross at the center of the display? Because Jesus was the Savoir, but not a lawgiver.
2. If the attempt was overtly theological, instead of legal, where are the rest of the great Biblical figures? Where's John the Baptist? Mary Magdalen? Peter? Paul? The rest of the Apostles?
3. If the attempt was theological, why are non-Christians also depicted? To many fundamentalist Christian religions in the United States such a pairing would not only be wrong, it would be sacreligious.
4. If the attempt was theological, why were the 10 Commandments omitted from depictions?
5. Why, if this is overtly a theological attempt, was Moses placed at the REAR of the chamber, instead of over the Rostrum, where all House members could see it when they are seated? In fact, House members see a Webster quotation and depictions of Jefferson and Mason when they look at the Rostrum.
You'd think that if this were theological, Moses would instead be placed front and center where all House members could see him, and theoretically draw inspiration from the depction. Instead, as they conduct their business, virtually all members of the House have their backs to Moses. That's hardly a position of strength.
6. Finally, if this were theological, why then is Moses flanked by two lawgivers -- Solon and Hammurabi -- who have virtually no standing in the Christian religion?
Why aren't the depictions of Popes Gregory and Innocent flank Moses, with the depcitions of St. Louis, Edward the Confessor, and Justinian, and Alphonso the 10th in close proximity, instead of spread out amongst pagans, Muslims, and humanists?
I've got to tell you, HGM, I admire the strength of your conviction, but I don't admire your attempt to subvert the true intention of these depictions for one that simply was never intended.
How is HGH an insult?
It's a typo.
When you type 102 words a minute, things like that creep in every once in awhile, so relax. No insult was intended, or should be inferred.
"No, because since God gave the commandments to Moses, then the commandments are, in essence, OLDER than Hammurabi since they came from God."
Now you're really stretching.
You're only ASSUMING that the commandments are older than Moses, in fact as old as God, as if God simply whipped them out of his back pocket when he finally found a messenger boy nimble enough to carry the tablets off the mountain without dropping them.
That's like saying that, since I'm 38 years, old the salad I made this evening for my dinner is also 38 years old.
Once again, in your zeal to assign an overtly Christian (remember, Moses was a Jew, not a Christian) meaning to the placement of the depciting of Moses, you fail to take into account or attempt to explain:
1. That all the plaques depict law givers, not Christians. If this were truly a Christian effort, why then, isn't Jesus on the Cross at the center of the display? Because Jesus was the Savoir, but not a lawgiver.
2. If the attempt was overtly theological, instead of legal, where are the rest of the great Biblical figures? Where's John the Baptist? Mary Magdalen? Peter? Paul? The rest of the Apostles?
3. If the attempt was theological, why are non-Christians also depicted? To many fundamentalist Christian religions in the United States such a pairing would not only be wrong, it would be sacreligious.
4. If the attempt was theological, why were the 10 Commandments omitted from depictions?
5. Why, if this is overtly a theological attempt, was Moses placed at the REAR of the chamber, instead of over the Rostrum, where all House members could see it when they are seated? In fact, House members see a Webster quotation and depictions of Jefferson and Mason when they look at the Rostrum.
You'd think that if this were theological, Moses would instead be placed front and center where all House members could see him, and theoretically draw inspiration from the depction. Instead, as they conduct their business, virtually all members of the House have their backs to Moses. That's hardly a position of strength.
6. Finally, if this were theological, why then is Moses flanked by two lawgivers -- Solon and Hammurabi -- who have virtually no standing in the Christian religion?
Why aren't the depictions of Popes Gregory and Innocent flank Moses, with the depcitions of St. Louis, Edward the Confessor, and Justinian, and Alphonso the 10th in close proximity, instead of spread out amongst pagans, Muslims, and humanists?
I've got to tell you, HGM, I admire the strength of your conviction, but I don't admire your attempt to subvert the true intention of these depictions for one that simply was never intended.
Mike Irwin
Member
I can answer that question, Lendringser...
I'm United Methodist, brough up in both Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren teachings (which joined in 1968 to form the United Methodist church in the United States).
I do not now practice, nor have I ever practiced, Christian rites as defined in Catholic dogma.
They are as foreign to me as Judaic or Muslim rites and beliefs.
And I would be SORELY pissed if I were told that the laws of the United States were being changed to adhere to the religious teachings of ANY of those dogmas.
I'm United Methodist, brough up in both Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren teachings (which joined in 1968 to form the United Methodist church in the United States).
I do not now practice, nor have I ever practiced, Christian rites as defined in Catholic dogma.
They are as foreign to me as Judaic or Muslim rites and beliefs.
And I would be SORELY pissed if I were told that the laws of the United States were being changed to adhere to the religious teachings of ANY of those dogmas.
Mike and Lendringser,
Let me make my position clear, I am not arguing for the Federal government to have a say in matters of religion or to favor a particular sect of the Christian religion or to ever get involved in the funding of religion. However, I do think it important for us to know the truth about our history and the role Christianity played in that history.
I suppose the best thing for us to examine at this point is the source of the "separation of church and state" phrase since it seems to be at the root of the argument against public expression of Christian belief. A case in point is the ACLU's recent assault on nativity scenes in their attempt to have them removed from public display during the Christmas season. You see, the separation phrase was used in the ACLU's argument. This simple phrase has been abused and is misunderstood and I think that the vast majority of our citizens have no clue where the "separation of church and state" phrase originated, and more importantly, the context under which it originated.
As the article below explains, up until the landmark Everson v. Board of Education, this phrase was practically unknown to the general population. And for good reason since the phrase wasn't mentioned ONCE during the debates over the development of the 1st Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Separation of Church and State
by David Barton
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.†The “separation of church and state†phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religionâ€:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion†in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.â€
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity†by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,†thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights†invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights†communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights†included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.†10 That is, “natural rights†incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights†they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence†of the Webster letter and the “wall†of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and stateâ€:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.â€
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order†and were “overt acts against peace.†However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospelâ€-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States†(emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation†dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.†It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation†phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state†currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
HGM
Let me make my position clear, I am not arguing for the Federal government to have a say in matters of religion or to favor a particular sect of the Christian religion or to ever get involved in the funding of religion. However, I do think it important for us to know the truth about our history and the role Christianity played in that history.
I suppose the best thing for us to examine at this point is the source of the "separation of church and state" phrase since it seems to be at the root of the argument against public expression of Christian belief. A case in point is the ACLU's recent assault on nativity scenes in their attempt to have them removed from public display during the Christmas season. You see, the separation phrase was used in the ACLU's argument. This simple phrase has been abused and is misunderstood and I think that the vast majority of our citizens have no clue where the "separation of church and state" phrase originated, and more importantly, the context under which it originated.
As the article below explains, up until the landmark Everson v. Board of Education, this phrase was practically unknown to the general population. And for good reason since the phrase wasn't mentioned ONCE during the debates over the development of the 1st Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Separation of Church and State
by David Barton
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.†The “separation of church and state†phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religionâ€:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion†in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.â€
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity†by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,†thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights†invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights†communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights†included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.†10 That is, “natural rights†incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights†they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence†of the Webster letter and the “wall†of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and stateâ€:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.â€
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order†and were “overt acts against peace.†However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospelâ€-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States†(emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation†dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.†It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation†phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state†currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
HGM
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the religion clause in the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase per se is not found in the Constitution, but the underlying concept is found in the First Amendment.
The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
Besides, I don't understand the course of your argument. You argue against the meaning of the First Amendment by trying to refute the constitutionally enshrined church-and-state separation, and yet you say that you are "not arguing for the Federal government to have a say in matters of religion or to favor a particular sect of the Christian religion or to ever get involved in the funding of religion." Well, that's what it means to keep church and state separate! Are you arguing that you personally support the separation of church and state, but you don't think the Constitution disallows all those things?
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, I did read the article. It's trying too hard to explain that "Jefferson didn't mean what they now say he meant". It still doesn't address how the First Amendment can only mean the Federal government, and how States can freely proscribe religious exercise by law.
You know, I absolutely agree with that. Privately initiated religious activity cannot be limited in public, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. The First Amendment, however, stipulates that any such religious activity must be privately funded, and it may not be initiated by any government official while he's on the government clock, because then the government would in effect pay for the activities of a particular religion.
You can start a church. You can pray in public. You can pray in school. You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose. The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates religious exercise, or grants any sort of public funding for it.
You know, I absolutely agree with that. Privately initiated religious activity cannot be limited in public, as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. The First Amendment, however, stipulates that any such religious activity must be privately funded, and it may not be initiated by any government official while he's on the government clock, because then the government would in effect pay for the activities of a particular religion.
You can start a church. You can pray in public. You can pray in school. You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose. The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates religious exercise, or grants any sort of public funding for it.
Mike Irwin
Member
And in trying to convey what you claim to be the truth of the matter you made a series of incorrect assumptions and statements, and continue to do so.
I've already stipulated that religion played a an important role of the men who founded this country.
However, your attempt to use the positioning of certain statuary figures as proof of the dominant role of Christianity in the founding of this nation is simply wrong.
You're overextending yourself with no basis.
I've already stipulated that religion played a an important role of the men who founded this country.
However, your attempt to use the positioning of certain statuary figures as proof of the dominant role of Christianity in the founding of this nation is simply wrong.
You're overextending yourself with no basis.
"You can pray in school."
----But not at high-school football games, right? You know, when my mother was in high-school, they had a Bible Club in all the local high schools. (In fact, they even had a Rifle Club... pretty cool, huh?) This wasn't unusual. In fact, it was the norm. The Bible had been taught in our nations public schools since the birth of our nation and this all started to change around the late 1940s. If the founders of Harvard were alive today, they'd be in awe of how this institution has been perverted. I know, it's a private institution, but it is indicative of how our nation's educational institutions as a whole have become hostile to Chistianity over the years.
"You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose."
----I disagree, and the Founders would too. Should pagans be permitted to use public facilities for human sacrafice? How about animal sacrafice? Afterall, paganism is a religion isn't it? What most of us fail to realize is that when the Founders debated religious issues, they assumed the nation would remain Christian. The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects.
"The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates relgious exercise."
----Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that State and Local governing authorities are forbidden to use THEIR tax dollars for the religious activities they support. I think it's a shame, and directly contrary to what the Founders intended, that a high school with 1000 students, say 99% Christian, are DENIED their freedom of religion because ONE or TWO Muslims may be offended. This type of situation is not what the Founders had in mind when they developed the 1st Amnd. The Congressional records of the day are proof of this.
HGM
----But not at high-school football games, right? You know, when my mother was in high-school, they had a Bible Club in all the local high schools. (In fact, they even had a Rifle Club... pretty cool, huh?) This wasn't unusual. In fact, it was the norm. The Bible had been taught in our nations public schools since the birth of our nation and this all started to change around the late 1940s. If the founders of Harvard were alive today, they'd be in awe of how this institution has been perverted. I know, it's a private institution, but it is indicative of how our nation's educational institutions as a whole have become hostile to Chistianity over the years.
"You can use public facilities for private religious initiatives, as long as every other eligious group in the community is granted the same access to that facility for their own purpose."
----I disagree, and the Founders would too. Should pagans be permitted to use public facilities for human sacrafice? How about animal sacrafice? Afterall, paganism is a religion isn't it? What most of us fail to realize is that when the Founders debated religious issues, they assumed the nation would remain Christian. The protections they put in place were to prevent one sect of Christianity from gaining the upper hand on the other sects.
"The one thing you cannot do is use tax money for any of those activities, or pass a law that mandates relgious exercise."
----Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that State and Local governing authorities are forbidden to use THEIR tax dollars for the religious activities they support. I think it's a shame, and directly contrary to what the Founders intended, that a high school with 1000 students, say 99% Christian, are DENIED their freedom of religion because ONE or TWO Muslims may be offended. This type of situation is not what the Founders had in mind when they developed the 1st Amnd. The Congressional records of the day are proof of this.
HGM
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
Ah, now we come down to the heart of the matter: the definition of "freedom of religion" as "freedom to be a Christian".
Pagans should be allowed the use of public facilities, as long as their conduct does not violate anyone's rights. Pagans should not have the right to human sacrifice, even if it did constitute part of their religion (which it doesn't.)
Equal access to all religions, even the ones you don't like or understand, as long as their religious exercise does not involve violating someone's rights. That goes for Christians, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, and every other religion or cult ever dreamed up by humanity. That's the only way you can keep religious peace.
No, the protections were put in place to keep any religion from gaining the upper hand over other religions, not just the Christian sects. I know that many Christians have no issue with the bible club at their local high school, but can you imagine the uproar in rural Georgia if some students wanted equal access to the school facilities for a Pagan or Muslim prayer club?
What about a community of 999 liberals, and one gun owner? Can the 99% be denied their right to not have guns around them, because one gun owner's rights may be restricted? Never mind the fact that the school kids you mention are not being denied their freedom of religion, just because the law says that the teachers may not lead the class in prayer.
Listen, contrary to your assertions, majority domination is *precisely* what the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent. The majority opinion doesn't mean doodly-squat when it comes to constitutional rights. If your frreedom of religion to you means that the 1% non-Christian students are forced to get up and proclaim that they live under a god, or listen to Bible sermons read by the scholl teachers, or participate in a graduation prayer against their religious convictions, then the majority cannot cancel out the rights of the 1% just by virtue of sheer numbers.
Besides, what kind of religious exercise is not open to you in school? All the Constitution prohibits is the exercise of school-sponsored (i.e.tax-funded) religious activities. The children are free to exercise their religion even in school, as long as it doesn't interfere with classwork, and as long as it doesn't involve violating someone else's rights to *not* have to pray or listen to sermons. This is solved by prohibiting the State (in the form of school teachers) to lead kids in prayer or make the exercise of religious rituals of any form mandatory for the whole class. Why is that not enough? Why do you claim "persecution" until you have the Ten Commandments in public classrooms, and a teacher-led prayer every morning, and a school-sponsored revival every year? Why does your idea of "religious freedom" mean that every child has to pledge allegiance to your God, even if there happen to be "one or two Muslims" in the crowd?
"I know that many Christians have no issue with the bible club at their local high school, but can you imagine the uproar in rural Georgia if some students wanted equal access to the school facilities for a Pagan or Muslim prayer club?"
If I were a Pagan or Muslim, I wouldn't live in rural Georgia to begin with... but if I did, I would accept the fact that these people have been predominantly Christian for 200 years or so and I would respect this tradition. If I lived in Japan, which I did for a year, I wouldn't try to change their traditions. I would respect their traditions and if I wanted to practice my Christian beliefs, I would do so in private. I certainly wouldn't demand that the entire student body change their way of life on my behalf.
However, given your scenario, if enough of Muslims or Pagans move to the area, they can start their own school, just like Christians do in communities all across America. An important part of any nation's culture is it's religious traditions, and our tradition is undoubtedly Christian.
Well, anyway, I don't think we're going to change each other's minds and although we disagree on this issue, I'm sure we can agree on the meaning of the 2nd Amdnt.
Regards,
HGM
If I were a Pagan or Muslim, I wouldn't live in rural Georgia to begin with... but if I did, I would accept the fact that these people have been predominantly Christian for 200 years or so and I would respect this tradition. If I lived in Japan, which I did for a year, I wouldn't try to change their traditions. I would respect their traditions and if I wanted to practice my Christian beliefs, I would do so in private. I certainly wouldn't demand that the entire student body change their way of life on my behalf.
However, given your scenario, if enough of Muslims or Pagans move to the area, they can start their own school, just like Christians do in communities all across America. An important part of any nation's culture is it's religious traditions, and our tradition is undoubtedly Christian.
Well, anyway, I don't think we're going to change each other's minds and although we disagree on this issue, I'm sure we can agree on the meaning of the 2nd Amdnt.
Regards,
HGM
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Rambling a bit
I know you said "the one thing you cannot do", but did you really mean that you think its OK for the NEA to fund Maplethorp's buggy whip collection? Or are there really two things you cannot do? Maybe three if you count Medicare payment for partial birth abortions?
It puzzles me to no end how some folks on the one hand try so hard to stifle the religious expression of local majorities in every public and private forum, on every level from the village passion play up to the national Christmas tree but they don't do the same thing for all the wrongheaded things the Left comes up with to fund at taxpayer expense.
Whether the Christians might somehow suppress the lone Weasel Worshipper in town should be the last and least of freethinker's worries. If you really want to see bloody wars of conquest you need to look at what the non deistic sects of world socialism have done to each other over the past century. Now that is a problem worth study!
**
On a less confrontive note, I must say during the 20+ years I considered myself to be an atheist I felt zero persecution from Southern Christian Conservatives. I watched them with a good deal of humor and in many ways it was like watching a Faulkner novel come to life. So I will mildly wonder about the psychodynamics of projection and denial among the more vociferous atheists among us.
HGM I think this was your first mistake. Why should you apologise because someone doesn't take the time to read and understand what you said?
Just curious, L, what do you think of other unconstitutional use of government funds? Everything from the TVA to school lunches to medical aide for Uganda fails to meet strict Constitutional tests. (This could go all the way down to the town's traffic light purchase if you are strictly anti-states-rights.)
I know you said "the one thing you cannot do", but did you really mean that you think its OK for the NEA to fund Maplethorp's buggy whip collection? Or are there really two things you cannot do? Maybe three if you count Medicare payment for partial birth abortions?
It puzzles me to no end how some folks on the one hand try so hard to stifle the religious expression of local majorities in every public and private forum, on every level from the village passion play up to the national Christmas tree but they don't do the same thing for all the wrongheaded things the Left comes up with to fund at taxpayer expense.
No, this was done in the historical context of the English Civil War, the Protectorate, The Restoration, et cetera plus the Scottish Covenent and the Irish wars. "Establishment" was specifically referring to the Church of England. The US hoped to avoid the bloody consequences they recalled Britain having had with its Christian sects vying for governemnt control.
Whether the Christians might somehow suppress the lone Weasel Worshipper in town should be the last and least of freethinker's worries. If you really want to see bloody wars of conquest you need to look at what the non deistic sects of world socialism have done to each other over the past century. Now that is a problem worth study!
**
On a less confrontive note, I must say during the 20+ years I considered myself to be an atheist I felt zero persecution from Southern Christian Conservatives. I watched them with a good deal of humor and in many ways it was like watching a Faulkner novel come to life. So I will mildly wonder about the psychodynamics of projection and denial among the more vociferous atheists among us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked