Supreme Court justice saves cross – for now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lone_Gunman said:
Camp David, why do you say we have a democracy not a republic?
Because I learned to read!

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

The Pillars of Democracy are as follows: Sovereignty of the people; Government based upon consent of the governed; Majority rule; Minority rights; Guarantee of basic human rights; Free and fair elections; Equality before the law; Due process of law; Constitutional limits on government; Social, economic, and political pluralism; Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Do these sound familar? Good. They are what make up our democracy.

The "Republic" you refer to cannot be used to describe what we have here in the United States. While Benjamin Franklin's famous assemement on the Constitutional Convention and his caution, i.e., "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" bears witness to the evolving government the Founding Father's created, it is a fact that what the Constitution provides is a democracy.
 
As a former and soon to be current San Diego resident I've been following this for a long long time. Frankly I just cant understand why some people make it their lifes work to tear down religious symbols.

In all of the hullabaloo has anyone ever stopped to ask the question what exactly does this accomplish? I have no doubt that the person who advocates its destruction feels better for the fact that he "won". But aside from that what is accomplished? Taking down a cross doesn't have any effect on christianity. If anything it emboldens those who believe.

I've always felt that those who advocate this are both childish and selfish. Its a child's mindset that believes that removing something from view (especially something religious) will have an effect on its impact. It's a selfish mindset that thinks because something is offensive to you, it should be removed despite there are hundreds of thousands of people that want it to stay.


Of course none of this addresses the legal aspect of the problem. As was stated before there is no separation of church and state. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion. What would violate the 1st amendment would be the government allowing one religion to operate/place an object on governmental land and not allowing another. Having a single religion do it without any evidence that any other religion was prohibited from doing so is not a violation.

My favorite question for those that always advocate the removal of such objects is how do you justify arlington cemetary. Its governmental land chock full of crosses. The fact that it is a cemetary makes no legal difference. Soledad is a memorial as well. Why one and not the other. I have yet to hear an answer...
 
The constitution isn't there to protect the minority? :uhoh: :barf:

Of course it is! You don't need the first amendment to protect speech thats popular, you need it to protect the few disliked things people want to say. You don't need freedom of religion to practice christianity, you need it to practice a disliked unpopular religion. The majority doesn't need to be guaranteed the right to vote or to be told they aren't slaves. The constitution says that the majority of voters can't decide they dislike guns and disarm people just because they are in the minority. The innocent men don't need protection from cruel and unusual punishment or right to a speedy trial. The constitution is there to be sure all people are treated fairly and equally by the government even if they are the unpopular minority. To suggest the constitution isn't meant to protect my ability to be in the minority and say "I dislike the government" or a popular religion is...well I can't even believe we're reading the same document.

One other point. People always mention that the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. Please don't forget the establishment clause as well. The founding fathers saw the problems of what happens when you tangle government and religion and thats why you not only have the freedom of religion, but I have the freedom of not having to pay for your religion. But hey some people read the 2nd amendment as a collective right so I guess we all have our take on things...
 
It says simply, Congress shall not establish religions and will allow the free expression of religions. - Camp David

Actually it doesn't quite say that. It merely says that there shall be no state religion, i.e. will be neutral in all official capacities and legislation. You would have to use "liberty" to find freedom of religion or accept that it is no more than implied by virtue of prohibiting the federal government from proclaiming one religion to be official. The 14A places the same restrictions on the States.

The 1A was violated the very minute that Ben Franklin proposed that Congress begin their sessions with a prayer, as if they all must have some faith in common or impart spiritual meaning to their proceedings. Due to cultural diversity and calling Christians on their will to dominate and make others their guests, that is far more inappropriate today than it would have been then.
 
Camp David, you provided quotations of nine individuals, and only two could be considered to be Founding Fathers, out of some fifty or so people. One of the people you quoted was an Englishman, so he hardly qualifies in a discussion of whether or not our government is based on a particular religion.

SOME of the Founding Fathers were Christian, others were not; most believed in a supreme being. There is a good reason that we we have a secular government; that being the impossibility of getting any large group of people to accept ONE and ONLY ONE form of religious doctrine. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid duplicating the flaws of the governments that existed in Europe at that time; government control over religious expression, and the persecutions that resulted, was a primary concern of the Founding Fathers.

George Washington was FREEMASON, and that is a religion, even though many people do not know that. Some people say that George Washington was a Christian, because he believed in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus Christ. Jesus said even the Demons believe in God and Himself, but that did not mean the Demons were Christians.

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to prevent the Federal Government from doing anything to encourage or discourage the practice of religion. The inntent was to allow each State to manage it's own laws regarding religion, and allow each individual to exercise choice in religious affiliation and practice, without Federal intervention of any kind. That certainly exemplifies the idea of a SECULAR national government.
 
has anyone ever stopped to ask the question what exactly does this accomplish?

Yes!

The 76% of us who voted to pass the land on to the Federal Government and let THEM deal with it.

No one here seems the least bit interested in discussing the real case. Oh well. I will repeat: if anyone can show that the City of San Diego has engaged in religious persecution, we here in San Diego might understand why this memorial, built before most of us can remember, and many of us were even born, must be torn down in the name of liberty.

Furthermore...

The US was consciously structured as a Republic; the fact that the vernacular use of "democracy" has led to the change in the dictionary definition to include republican forms of government does not change this fact. When the Constitution was written, there were two models that interested the founders: Athenian democracy and the pre-Julius Caesar Roman republic. Democracy is a Greek word; republic is a Latin word. Democracy specifically meant majority rule; republic specifically meant representative government.
 
I am not sure how many of them were Deists specifically, though many certainly were.

Beyond that, though, those who were Christians also subscribed to a "deist-leaning" philosophy. In general, there was consensus among them that there WERE moral absolutes that came from the Creator, but also that working things out is mainly up to us.

Popular writer of the era, Voltaire, berated people for not using the reason that God gave us. This worldview says that God has indeed already empowered us: God gave us Reason, and it's our responsibility to go forth and use it, not keep praying for more answers.

At least from my studies of the time and people, that is the best characterization of the Founders' shared worldview that I can offer. Some believed in heaven and hell, others were close to atheism. Many were anti-organized-religion. But they shared the view that it is up to us, as humans, to take our intellectual and moral understanding and apply them.
 
Not all Judeo-Christians agree with religious icons and I'm guessing hte Judeo-part of that aint' all that thrilled with the cross idea.

Personally, if something can be deemed historical, like this cross, they should That covers crosses and anything else..new stuff? Of course not.

The 10 commandments, as far as I'm concerned, are fine. If someone wants to put up the Laws of Hamurabi next to them, all the better. It's a historical document.
 
Regarding local Jews, at least one prominent local rabbi has been working to help save the cross.

Many local Jews, while they aren't attached to having a cross up there, are not happy with those who would take wrecking balls to religious symbols. They've kinda got a few bad memories about that sort of thing.
 
Eerie deja vu?

I'm all of a sudden seeing that film from about 6 years ago of the Taliban planting charges on that 6th century statue of Buddha carved into the rock in Afghanistan then demolishing the symbol of a religion they did not approve of.

I'm beginning to think this is more of a case of the "Tyranny of the Minority" with one or two people able to override the will of the majority (75%) based not on real damages, but on how they claim an innanimate object makes them feel.

Not too far to imagine someone suing because a concealed carry law makes them "feel" in danger.
 
I'm all of a sudden seeing that film from about 6 years ago of the Taliban planting charges on that 6th century statue of Buddha carved into the rock in Afghanistan then demolishing the symbol of a religion they did not approve of.
I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
Not too far to imagine someone suing because a concealed carry law makes them "feel" in danger.
They are calling the cops on people that open carry and when there is an accidental exposer of a concealed carry, even though the carriers have made no agressive moves or anything.

You know how it is, see a gun and panic, or even worse, I don't like guns, they shouldn't have one on them.
 
One other point. People always mention that the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion and there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. Please don't forget the establishment clause as well. The founding fathers saw the problems of what happens when you tangle government and religion and thats why you not only have the freedom of religion, but I have the freedom of not having to pay for your religion.

At the risk of being blunt, this statement is total bunk. The establishment clause was written to prohibit the state establishment of religion a la the church of england. The establishment clause has nothing to say about a cross on state land.

My free exercise of religion is perfectly inline with the constitution if I put a cross on state land. As long as I don't prohibit you from doing the same then I'm in the clear. Anyone who suggests otherwise has no understanding of the forst amendment or constitutional law. (yes I know this includes some judges)
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being blunt, this statement is total bunk. The establishment clause was written to prohibit the state establishment of religion a la the church of england. The establishment clause has nothing to say about a cross on state land.
Madison was responsible for much of the bill of rights. In his letters to others you'll find phrases like "total separation of the church from the state." Jefferson had said something very similar in a letter written about people being taxed to support a state religion in Connecticut. If the issue comes down to taxpayer's money going to support a religion, I think the historical documentation is there to show the framers were against spending tax dollars on religion. I think they fully realized while they have their own religious beliefs that government had no place meddling in religion and free people shouldn't find a religion thrust on them by the government be it through worship or taxes.
 
You stated that the establishment clause prohibited having a cross on public property. This is simply wrong.

Furthermore, the Soledad cross as well as other monuments are not an example of the government "spending tax dollars on religion". The government didnt pay to place the cross there. However the question of tax dollars is a moot point. Nothing in the first amendment has anything to do with taxes.

But assuming for a minute that you are correct, explain to me why Congress starts with a prayer or keeps a chaplain on staff. Why do we print "in God we trust" on our currency. Why is Moses, and the 10 commandments inscribed on the side of the courtroom in the supreme court. All of these things are funded in whole or in part by our tax dollars. George Washington started off his presidency with a prayer. Its been custom all the way back to the first days of America for the president to place his hand on the bible as he is being sworn in.

To say that the framers wanted separation between religion and government is insane in light of the fact that most if not all of the religious traditions we have today were started back then.

Maybe not all of the framers were christians, but the few that werent were definately not praying to allah or buddah.

At the end of the day this puts a bur under my saddle not because people have differing opinions, thas fine. What irks me are those people (and I'm not necessarily saying you are) that want to rewrite history, or pretend that certian things did or didn't happen.
 
But assuming for a minute that you are correct, explain to me why Congress starts with a prayer or keeps a chaplain on staff. Why do we print "in God we trust" on our currency. Why is Moses, and the 10 commandments inscribed on the side of the courtroom in the supreme court.
I would point out that the congressional prayer was not started without protest from some even at that time, right off hand including Jay and Rutledge. It was eventually seen not as proselytizing but as something that tried to unite the congressmen with components of all their religions and was more of a secular function than religious. I'm not sure I would agree with that, I think they might have just made a mistake. James Madison initially supported it, but later decided he was indeed wrong in his support of it. Remember also that the bill of rights came from disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists and was meant as a way to be sure the constitution was ratified. Madison, opposed the bill of rights even but didn't want another constitutional convention. This wasn't necessarily an ideal that was held dear to them. I would also suggest reading the dissenting USSC opinion from Marsh v. Chambers if you want a more well written arguement as well. :D

I wouldn't try to make a great case for "in god we trust either." It didn't become an official US motto until 1956. It was added to paper currency in 1957. It wasn't on all coins until 1938. It didnt appear on any coin until 1864 thanks to christian requests for the phrase. Money around the founding fathers time was more likely to say liberty or e pluribus unum. The courts would make the arguement it is secular and not religious. I think based on the history of requests for it to Salmon Chase we can throw that out as bunk.

I would also point out the the supreme court building also features Mohammad and Confucius in a display of 18 law givers. While the men may be of religious significance, I don't believe anyone would suggest that it is a display of religion.
 
But assuming for a minute that you are correct, explain to me why Congress starts with a prayer or keeps a chaplain on staff.
Can't argue with this one. Been going on since the Continental Congress in 1774. Of course, that was before our current form of government. Oh, and said chaplain wrote Washington urging him to stop the resistance. He himself fled to England. (And Washington had this to say in a letter that accompanied the chaplains letter which he immediately forwarded to Congress: )
"I yesterday, through the hands of Mrs Ferguson, of Graham Park, received a letter, of a very curious and extraordinary nature, from Duche', which I have thought proper to transmit to Congress. To this ridiculous, illiberal performance, I made a short reply, by desiring the bearer of it, if she should hereafter, by any accident, meet Mr. Duche', to tell him I should have returned it unopened, if I had had any idea of the contents; observing, at the same time, that I highly disapproved the intercourse she seemed to have been carrying on and expected it would be discontinued. Notwithstanding the author's assertion; but suspect that the measure did not originate with him, and that he was induced to it by the hope of establishing his interest and peace more effectually with the enemy."
These guys were awesome in every way! :)
Of course, this "tradition" went over well:
he early Congressional Chaplaincies, although held generally by worthy men, did not seem to be uniformly successful. For instance, the Rev. Ashbel Green, a Congressional chaplain for eight years beginning in 1792 complained of the thin attendance of members of Congress at prayers. He attributed the usual absence of two-thirds to the prevalence of freethinking.
BTW, did you know the the chaplains earn $140,000-$160,000 a year? Damn well better be saying a prayer of thanks before every session!
But, hey, you got us on this one. SCOTUS even says it's legit since it's a "tradition".

Why do we print "in God we trust" on our currency.
A "recent innovation":
he motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War.
As a matter of fact, it usurped the original national motto:
"In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Kinda like "under god" being added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The original had no such phrase and it was written by a Baptist minister!

Why is Moses, and the 10 commandments inscribed on the side of the courtroom in the supreme court.
Why, indeed? Perhaps because it's merely a part of a display representing the history of law. Why is it you don't mention the other superstarts present on the same walls? I mean, Muhammad is there as well...oh, and Memes, Hammurabi, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavion, Napoleon...the list is quite large.


All of these things are funded in whole or in part by our tax dollars.
Exactly. More modern-day steamrolling of the minority by the majority. Precisely the situation the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid by chosing a Representative Democracy vs. a Direct Democracy.

George Washington started off his presidency with a prayer.
Which prayer? Washington was a Deist. I'd like to see it.

Its been custom all the way back to the first days of America for the president to place his hand on the bible as he is being sworn in.
Which is not mentioned in the constitution. As a matter of fact, the new President can choose to "affirm" instead of "swear". The bible would serve no purpose in that case. Oh, and a few presidents have used no bible at all.
And before you pull the ol' "But Washington added the 'so help me God.' to the oath of office, evidence has shown that to have been added by Chester A Arthur in 1881. The next wasn't until Warren Harding in 1921!

To say that the framers wanted separation between religion and government is insane in light of the fact that most if not all of the religious traditions we have today were started back then.
umm, but almost all of them weren't started back then!

Maybe not all of the framers were christians, but the few that werent were definately not praying to allah or buddah.
No, they were "freethinkers", freemasons, deists, etc. But guess what? Even if there were some who prayed to Allah of Buddah, they would have welcomed them with open arms if they also wanted all men to be free from oppression.

At the end of the day this puts a bur under my saddle not because people have differing opinions, thas fine. What irks me are those people (and I'm not necessarily saying you are) that want to rewrite history, or pretend that certian things did or didn't happen.
Who again is rewriting history??
 
This is going to be longwinded, but oh well. I cannot sleep because people are still lighting off remaining stocks of their fireworks.

The Atheist, believing only in the power of man, sees the destruction and prohibition of the symbols of deity worship as a sign of the strength of the religion of Atheism or Humanism. The absence of religious symbols is not a neutral position; it is a position favoring the atheistic belief.

I don't get where that thought process comes from other than the convenience to make a sweeping generalization from imagination in order to satisfy oneself. I don't recall any Atheist Inquisitions or Atheist Crusades. Atheist beliefs are almost -always- self-arrived/realized by an individual or small group of people that ponder theological and philosophical subjects. There is no overwhelming global body of Atheists at the Vatican lead by a heirchy of Atheists that determine things like what shoes would Atheists wear or what holidays they should concoct. In fact, Atheism has many sub-beliefs and varying degrees of extremity in and of itself, just as any religious, political, economic, or major belief system that guides the various cogs running the world. A reasonable introductory article can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

As such, you would find it impossible to back up such an argument that Atheism as a whole (since is is fragmented and isolated by socialogical and demographic environment) is somehow out to erradicate theistic symbols as a prime directive of a governing or structured belief system, since there is no structure, period. There are no Sunday Atheist gatherings or Atheist dogma. There are some groups (mainly on the Internet) that might host small rallies or gatherings of Atheists for whatever reason it is they do (barbeques and t-shirt ideas perhaps) but nowhere near the magnitude of established theistic groups. Atheists do not follow proselytized theistic dogma and scripture engrained since early childhood that (in the case of Abrahamic-based religions) states their [belief] is the only way and that it is your job or tenant to convert others and push them into conformity (and historically, that included fear, torture, death, and genocide of indiginous natives).

I would say such a statement is a complete lack of logical thought. If the Constitution of government were to favor Atheism using the illogical statement reposted above, it would erect a statue that would somehow represent the disbelief and dismissal of all theistic beliefs. However, that is not the case. It simply leaves a blank slate. Our Constitution is written in a way that it is secular and allows the expression of non-religion or religion. Absence of religious symbols favors no particular religion or lack thereof. The absence of religion isn't the evidence of favoring the belief in no religion. Important: note how that is worded.

Absence of religion from an establishment does not mean the belief in no religion, which would be Atheism. The absence of religion does not favor any theistic beliefs, and it does not favor the lack of theistic beliefs either. It is such a simple concept that I find it hard to believe, from my viewpoint, why it is such difficult to grasp. Given any other topic or word besides religion, it would make crystal clear sense. The absence of a firearm from someone's home does not mean that they believe no one should own a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Yet, it does not favor rifles, pistols, or shotguns. That homestead favors neither freedom from firearms, or any particular type of firearm. It is quite simply, (and elegantly) neutral. As far as the Constitution goes, do people honestly think so little of our Founding Fathers to think that, while drafting up the most important document of our nation, forget to insert numerous situations or lexicon involving God/god/Goddess/goddess/gods/goddesses/smorgasboard of deities into the US Consitution, but they really, really meant to...but it was too late since everyone already signed it?

Pasting famous quotes by Founding Fathers or famous politicians and leaders during that era can be inspirational, but it can be abused and absurd when lifted out of context. I can counter with a list of anti-religious or secular quotes by founding fathers and famous early leaders of our country that state the exact opposite of those listed in an earlier post, but I would not be proving a point because arguments cannot be won by pasting quotes (especially both pro/con quotes coming from the same famous individual!). The following demonstration is equally fruitless and shows that quotes to not win an argument.
  • "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." Thomas Jefferson
  • "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.
  • "Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effects of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.
  • "I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Elbridge Gerry.
  • "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper. 1814
  • "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine
  • "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine
  • "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law." Thomas Paine

  • "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? John Adams
  • "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." John Adams
  • "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." John Adams
  • "[T]here remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported.... the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together....We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without then with the aid of Govt." James Madison
  • "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." George Washington
  • ". . . I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." George Washington
  • "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripolo 1797

With that brief quotational interlude, it is to my knowledge that many Founding Fathers were considered Christian, and many also fit into the deist philosophy (which could be equivalent to modern day spirituality) which was rather commonplace at that time. However, it was NO accident that the Constitution took on a secular note. If someone claims all our Founding Fathers to be Atheists and that is why the US Constitution takes on a secular stance, then one could claim it was a biased piece of documentation and it would make sense. Yes, most every major poltitical document like the Declaration of Independance and others leading up to the Consitution has mentioned religion but these religious and spiritual Founding Fathers felt unanimously compelled to instill total secularism in the US Consitution....to legally bind and form a country around a secular US Consitution and hold back the temptation of filling it with their personal religious beliefs.

...doesn't that strike anyone as amazing at all? Does that not show an incredible restraint of putting the future and security of "we the people" (not "we the majority", or "we the ruling minority") before one's personal beliefs, not to mention almost clairvoyant foresight?" (ignoring the many modern-day bastardizations in our government which weren't the intentions of the Founding Fathers)

Again, the actions of one man (an Atheist in this case) does not define everyone with that belief. We could start throwing logical fallacies and stating every American is as bumbling a public speaker as George Bush, every gun owner is a creepy old man that shoots up schools, every Muslim is a suicide bomber, every Christian is an abortion clinic bomber, and every soccer mom in an SUV is prone to run you off the road...actually scratch the last example :neener:
 
Which prayer? Washington was a Deist. I'd like to see it.
Can you point to which of George Washington's many writing where he said he was a Deist. If you can, I will read it for myself and agree with you.

If you can't point out his writings, I will continue to believe George Washington was a Born Again Christian.
 
"Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception." written to Lafayette in 1787

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

A long commentary on it, with extensive contemporary quotes:
http://www.atheism.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html#1

All evidence points to Washington's not being a born-again Christian, as the term is currently used.

He did, however, refer to Providence, reason, and our obligations to both. These are hallmarks of Deism.

Believe what you want, but there truly is no surviving evidence of Washington's being a born-again Christian. His wife, yes, but he, no. He was pretty ambivalent about religion in general. A story once circulated about a deathbed profession of faith is, AFAIK, not authentic.
 
But assuming for a minute that you are correct, explain to me why Congress starts with a prayer or keeps a chaplain on staff. Why do we print "in God we trust" on our currency. Why is Moses, and the 10 commandments inscribed on the side of the courtroom in the supreme court. All of these things are funded in whole or in part by our tax dollars. George Washington started off his presidency with a prayer. Its been custom all the way back to the first days of America for the president to place his hand on the bible as he is being sworn in.

This is the kind of argument that points out why every incursion of religion into government becomes a Trojan Horse for moving to the next level. What you are cataloging is the progression of violations of the First Amendment, not the foundation of it.
 
On a related note: Didn't Thomas Jefferson re-write the New Testament? IIRC he eliminated all references to miracles and direct divine intervention and basically ignored the Old Testament.

Doesn't sound like any Christians I know.

The Founding Fathers were most definitely radicals, trying to pull them into what is essentially an argument to preserve the status-quo seems counter-productive.

Also, why is a plain reading of the 2a touted on this board, but a convoluted reading of 1a? Apply the same logic and thought process to both please.
 
Camp David: It says simply, Congress shall not establish religions

Edited to correct my misquote -- the point still stands

No, it doesn't say that. You've glossed over a key word -- respecting. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

That means that not only must congress refrain from declaring an official religion it also must refrain from passing the types of laws that go along with ("respecting") the establishment of a religion.

For example, a law that simply required you to give 10% of your income to the Church of XYZ would not "establish a religion," so would be perfectly fine under the wrongly narrow idea that only the actual establishment is barred.

That's an obvious case of a law -- while not an actual establishment -- nonetheless is "respecting an establishement" and would be forbidden. Others are not so obvious.

That said, I don't think that allowing a cross on public property typically would rise to the level of a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
 
Last edited:
cuchulainn said:
No, it doesn't say that. You've glossed over a key word -- regarding. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion."

FindLaw (here) shows text as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

cuchulainn => Where did you dig up the word "regarding" or is that your interpretation? The word is "establishing" and I restate my case as it changes nothing in my contention...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top