1st Amendment of the United States Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech………..”
This is NOT what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Here’s what Joseph Story (one of the founders) said about the intention of writing the 1st amendment:
“At the time of the adoption…of the Amendment…the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State.”
Justice Story continued: “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”
I will also add, you can’t find ONE, NOT ONE example of the Founding Fathers practicing “separation of church and state” as the modern day courts make us do today…….NOT ONE….I challenge anyone reading this to give me one….just one example from the founding fathers….
The war against free speech and religious liberty took a strange and disturbing twist last Friday in the town of Westmoreland, Tennessee.
Four public school football coaches were spotted bowing their heads during a student-led prayer. According to reports, the coaches did not initiate the prayer, nor did they utter a word as the students prayed.
For this, they were called on the carpet by school authorities.
WSMV reports the coaches were not disciplined, but were educated on the school’s policy and had to sign a letter acknowledging they understood that policy.
Josh DeVine wrote:
“We’ve been telling our principals to kind of be looking for those things, because that is kind of a shift in how things have been done,” Sumner County Schools spokesperson Jeremy Johnson said. “It can in no way appear like it’s endorsed by Sumner County Schools personnel.”
According to the new policy, the result of an ACLU lawsuit alleging violations of “separation of church and state,” staff can be present while students pray, but cannot participate, nor can they even give the appearance of participation - even outside school hours.
But is bowing one’s head out of respect endorsement of prayer or religion?
“It depends on what it looks like,” Johnson told Channel 4. “That’s where you kind of get into the gray area that we’re having to deal with.”
The move has some in the town up in arms.
Step by step democrats are erasing Chrisitianity from American culture.
When will Americans stand up and say enough is enough?
babybttrfly
Steve Hilton
Mike
Sep 25, 2011 @ 23:05:43
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. They later buttressed this separation with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
As for your challenge: During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles. Separation of church and state is not some new invention of the courts.
Story is not one of the founders. He was a child at the time of the founding.
Reliance on Story’s comments in his Commentaries, moreover, is problematic to say the least. First, note that he offers conflicting ideas. In passages preceding those you quoted, he says this about the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution: “This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national government.” He goes on to explain the aim was to cut off any alliance between government and any religion, Christian or other: “The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. . . . The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right Of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom the history of the Parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. . . . With one quotation more from [Blackstone], exemplifying the nature and objects of the English test laws, this subject may be dismissed. ‘In order the better to secure the established church against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there are, however, two bulwarks erected, called the corporation and test-acts. . . .’ It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.” Story then turned to the amendments and offered the seemingly contrary views you quoted.
Second, perhaps in all his comments but at least in those concerning the First Amendment, Story appears to express his personal views rather than some conclusion drawn from evidence. He offers no evidence of the framers’ intent in this regard (failing even to acknowledge that Madison had by then already vetoed two bills based on an understanding of the First Amendment contrary to Story’s), and instead resorts to his personal opinion: “The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of; rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all, the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;– these never Can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community it is, indeed difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for; those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.” (Moreover, that he was wrong in supposing this “impossible” is evidenced by the fact that hardly all devout founders shared this idea.)
Third, (as should be especially appreciated by those modern day show-me-the-words-separation-of-church-and-state literalists), he entirely fails to explain how he reads the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to mean only “to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects” and “Christianity ought to receive encouragements from the State.”
For many reasons, this notion simply does not square with the amendment’s language or evidence of the founders’ intent. First, note no mention in the text of “Christianity” or “sect” or anything of the sort. Second, note that the word “religion” is uttered once–setting the scope of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If the text is read so that the term “religion” means only a “national Christian sect” or the like (thus limiting the scope of the establishment clause as Story supposes), violence is done to the free expression clause, which then would merely constrain Congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise “thereof”–i.e., a national Christian sect–and leave it free to interfere with the exercise of any and all other religious beliefs. Silly.
While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects (largely but not exclusively Christian) and some (but hardly all) founders were motivated by that perceived need to support separation of church and state, it is a non sequitur to suppose therefore that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one “sect” (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., “generic” Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such).
Any such interpretation, moreover, would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them. For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? Christianity comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism is a “Christian” sect.
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as Story notes, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Sep 26, 2011 @ 09:49:01
dougindeap….thanks for your rather lengthy reply on “separation of church and state” , despite your what you say, I’m sorry but history doesn’t support your view or Wake Forrest’s article. My view of the 1st amendment is not one “caricatured in the blogosphere” as you put it, but is one from historical facts about the what the founding fathers did and said.. I”ll address your challenge first and then show more historical facts than you can shake a stick at next to support the founder’s meaning on the 1st amendment.
“As for your challenge: During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles. Separation of church and state is not some new invention of the courts.”
Everyone always uses Madison, Franklin or Jefferson in their attempt to refute me…..In this case you refer to about the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, this was obviously Madison’s personal opinion of the 1st amendmtn because, I do know that Thomas Jefferson signed a bill authorizing both the salary of a missionary to the Kaskaskia Indian tribe, as well as the construction of a church for the Indians, to be paid for out of the national treasury and Congress approved it. And of all people Jefferson would not have done this if he thought it unconstitutional.
As far as Madison, “He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles”….that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment establishing a church. I give you this historical fact below as an example that this had nothing to do with the 1st amendment as you refer it does.
It is a historical fact that, one of the first acts of the Second Continental Congress on September 11, 1777 was to order the printing of 20,000 Bibles paid for by the U.S. Congress with public money, and inside the cover of those Bibles it says that they were for use in our schools. It ended up that Congress didn’t have to import them, because a US citizen Robert Aitken stepped up and said he’d print them here in the US himself. In 1777 Robert Aitken of Philadelphia published a New Testament. Three additional editions were published in 1789, 1779, and 1781. The edition of 1779 was used in schools. Aitken’s efforts proved so popular that he announced his desire to publish the whole Bible; he then petitioned Congress for support. Congress adopted the following resolution in 1782..Congress stated: “Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the…undertaking of Mr. Aitken…and…recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation.”
Library of Congress link to 20,000 Bibles:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
As far as Joseph Story, you show your lack of knowledge about him as well. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Joseph Story never mentioned Madison’s veto you refer to above because it was a minority view point and he didn’t consider it important. There are way to many more facts that point to this about Madison’s viewpoint on this subject…United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law. Story, first a Jeffersonian Republican and then (following his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by President James Madison), a Federalist, was one of the United States’ most influential Supreme Court justices. His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame. His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected. Joseph Story was younger than the founding fathers, yes, but with the exception of George Washington, he had the opportunity to get first hand reports from most of the others that were still living in his day.
Contrary to your statement, “Separation of church and state is not some new invention of the courts.”…..history does not support that statement, if it did why was it something new when the 1947 Supreme Court first invented it? Why was the Bible read everyday in schools and prayer given since our beginning if Separation of church and state is not anything new? Why was the McGuffy readers allowed for some many years with Bible scripture in them if Separation of church and state isn’t anything new? Why was church allowed to be held the first almost 100 years of this country’s creation in the old Capitol building, old Senate building and old Supreme Court chambers if Separation of church and state is not anything new? The last 50 years or so of the courts ruling on “Separation of church and state” goes completely opposite from all the other early rulings of the Courts. If it had been practiced since the beginning then, why has what we’ve been doing since before the creation of this country, beginning especially in the 1960s court rulings started to be declared unconstitutional even tho it was done while and since the founding fathers were in charge?
Sep 28, 2011 @ 23:42:04
As I observed above, the Constitution’s separation of church and state appears in much more than just the First Amendment, as you suppose.
The “history” to which you appeal is a false or distorted version peddled by certain writers in order to support the very view you urge. The three items you mention, commonly repeated on the internet, are good examples.
Congress and Jefferson did not enact a bill of the sort you assert. Rather, Jefferson, with the consent of the Senate, entered into a treaty with the Kaskaskia in which the U.S. traded various items desired by the tribe, including $300 to help the tribe (whose members were largely Catholic) erect a church and $100 per year for seven years to support a priest, in exchange for nearly 9 million acres of land. That’s it. You see the difference, I trust, between entering into a treaty to bargain with a sovereign nation and, well, any other government action, e.g., passing a law, with the aim of promoting religion. Jefferson, by the way, signed over forty treaties with various Indian nations and only the one with the Kaskaskia said anything about religion; he was hardly pushing religion, rather he was bargaining for land.
Many versions of the Congress-Bible story have circulated over the years. Contrary to the one you offer, the Continental Congress did not order the printing of any Bibles paid for by the U.S. Rather, as part of its efforts to deal with price gouging for many products, including Bibles, a committee considered a request to recommend that Congress import types and paper thereby enabling it to regulate the selling price of Bibles. That idea was dropped and the committee voted 7-6 to consider the alternative of recommending that Congress loan money to import 20,000 Bibles and recoup the loan from sale proceeds. A motion to that effect was made, but postponed and never brought up again. The matter never even came up before the entire Continental Congress, and the Congress never ordered any importation of Bibles.
Your version of the Aitken Bible story (apparently drawn largely from DeMar) is off as well. At a time when local printers could hardly compete with British printers, Aitken petitioned Congress in 1782, asking that his Bible “be published under the Authority of Congress,” that he “be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend” editions of the Bible, and that Congress purchase some of his Bibles and distribute them to the states. Congress did not grant any of these requests and instead helped him only by passing a resolution recommending his edition based on its chaplain’s report of the satisfactory “care and accuracy” of his work. Aitken printed only 10,000 Bibles, and they sold so poorly (perhaps because hostilities ceased and better quality British editions again became available) that he lost over €3,000. In 1790, Aitken appealed to George Washington for help in light of his sufferings to be appointed “Printer & Stationer to Congress” and be granted “an exclusive right, for a term of Years, to print the Bible within the United States.” Washington never answered personally and instead had his secretary inform Aitken he should apply to Congress if he wanted to be its printer. So much for Aitken.
Chris Rodda does a good job setting these and other common misconceptions straight in Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line at http://www.liarsforjesus.com/)
Sep 29, 2011 @ 23:29:33
Dougindeap….I make this a short answer…..you and Chris Rodda don’t know what your talking about my friend. Liars for Jesus, that tells me a lot about you and your bogus info…..all the info I gave you is historical fact, unlike the garbage you are spewing out….a lot of my info is from the Library of Congress.
The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History as you call it is Historical fact as I said unlike your lies your putting out here. I’ve heard all that garbage before and it is not the truth……you have been lied to, I’ve researched this for many years and found many of the original documents, one of them being Congress commending Aitken for the Bibles…this info was in all in the link to the Library of Congress website if you’d took the time to look.
Sep 30, 2011 @ 00:45:21
That you suppose I am the one who has been the victim of lies without so much as checking the validity of what I’ve told you says much about how you will cling to your lies no matter what. I’m reminded of what is said about a horse and water.
Yes, you have to get past the provocative title of Rodda’s book, but that is hardly a legitimate excuse for failing even to look at the facts and evidence. Her book is thoroughly researched and meticulously documented. She presents some of the claims of Barton, DeMar, and others of the same sort, reviews the evidence and explanations they offer, and then discusses the evidence they omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up–yes, flat out falsehoods. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, these would-be champions of a religious right version of history reveal their fears that the real facts fall short of making their case. Rodda offers documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one’s self–and she posts all of the evidence from all of the footnotes on her website so everyone can easily see for themselves. As far as I am aware, neither Barton, DeMar, nor anyone else has refuted any of the points she makes. It bears noting, by the way, that Rodda is hardly the only one who has exposed the lies of these folks; among historians, they are notorious for their shoddy work and downright dishonesty.
Sep 30, 2011 @ 09:37:01
Dougindeap…“That you suppose I am the one who has been the victim of lies without so much as checking the validity of what I’ve told you says much about how you will cling to your lies no matter what. I’m reminded of what is said about a horse and water.”
My friend I have checked the validity of what you’ve told me several times over through the years and I do mean several times. The more I checked into the original documents, the more I saw the truth about our Christian heritage…….what your clinging to is lies and you don’t realize. I don’t have to get past Rodda’s book because I passed it years ago. Along with the fact that Chris Rodda is an atheist, as I assume you may be as well…so what would you expect from an atheist? Denial of our Christian heritage, that’s what you’d expect… For one more example here is a link here, to the actual page from the Journal of Congress thanking Robert Aitken for his Bibles that were later used in the public schools.
Even the Supreme Court in 1892 ruled in “Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States” ……….”These, and many other matters which might be noticed, (referring to the 87 examples they gave without exhausting the examples of our Christian heritage) add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation“……….The Court found that 87 precedents were completely adequate to justify their decision. This number of precedents is in stark contrast to the decisions later announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960′s which had zero precedents to refer to for their decisions.
Let’s just go ahead a admit, your problem with the truth about our American heritage is Christianity period and Jesus Christ who came and died on the cross for you even tho you’ve rejected his gift to you so far which is eternal life…..John 3:16 …..”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that “if Dougindeap” believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Sep 29, 2011 @ 23:41:09
We also have a record of George Washington speaking to the Delaware Indian Chiefs about sending their children to our schools and one of the reasons for sending them is learning about Jesus Christ, Washington tells about this from his personal journal.
Washington, George, 1732-1799. The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779
“Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethen of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.”
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi15.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div1
Sep 30, 2011 @ 22:41:58
Notwithstanding that you say you have checked the validity of my statements explaining the errors in your comments, you should check again. What you asserted is plainly and demonstrably wrong, and you need only look to confirm that yourself.
As we’ve gone around that point already a time or two, I think the usefulness of our conversation is at an end. Good luck in your studies.
Oct 02, 2011 @ 22:40:47
dougindeap you said, “I think the usefulness of our conversation is at an end. Good luck in your studies.”……your probably right, because I too gave you links to my historical facts from reputable sources and you just ignored them yourself……
BTW….In the example of Thomas Jefferson and the Kaskaskia Indian Tribe you let the real point go straight over your head….You yourself validated my point and in the process completely missed it…..“$300 to help the tribe (whose members were largely Catholic) erect a church and $100 per year for seven years to support a priest, in exchange for nearly 9 million acres of land.”…….this being a treaty doesn’t really matter because they used government money to push Christianity ( a religion)…..if “separation of church and state” was practiced then as we interpret it today…..it would be declared unconstitutional. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787, Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. In 1833, Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds “for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . .
Use some common sense dougindeap….. If the founding fathers meant for the 1st amendment to mean what it does today, then why was prayer and Bible reading in schools done from the beginning until the 1960s before it was declared unconstitutional? And what about what George Washington told the Delaware Indian Chiefs about the advantages of them sending their children to our schools was…… “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” ……You won’t learn about the “religion of Jesus Christ” today in schools…..the teacher referred to in this article above I posted just bowed his head with the football players and didn’t even pray or start it and now the ACLU is after him…..Boy the ACLU would have had a field day had they existed in the Founders day and the 1st amendment had been interpreted then as it is today (which is wasn’t).
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion.
Let’s look at some things the founders said down this same line:
Noah Webster (founder of Webster’s dictionary) “The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields.”
Roger Sherman……Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution …I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment.”
–The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Thomas Jefferson said, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
Thomas Jefferson, “No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example“………Hutson, Religion, p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
Oct 02, 2011 @ 22:52:52
Let’s look at what some of the other now so well known founding fathers said, there were more founders than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin & Alexander Hamilton you know:
Fisher Ames, is known as the primary author of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution – —In 1801, Fisher Ames was quoted in Paladian Magazine, giving his view of American education:
“We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We’re starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We’ve become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. We’re spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.”
Fisher Ames, delegate to the Constitutional Convention and co-writer of the First Amendment wrote: … “the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms. Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble…the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.” America’s God and Country, William Federer, p.26
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution said, “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we were to remove the Bible from our educational institutions, I’ll admit that we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing crimes, while at the same time taking so little pains to prevent them.”
Richard Stockton, a founding father: An estimate of the high tone of his Christian character can be formed by reading the following extract from his last will: “As my children will have frequent occasion of perusing this instrument, and may probably be peculiarly impressed with the last words of their father, I think proper here, not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the being of a God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the Person, and completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the divine Spirit, of divine faith accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of divine Providence; but also in the bowels of a father’s affection to charge and exhort them to remember that ‘the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.’”
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”……Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
Samuel Adams…Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
“And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace.”
–As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
That’s a lot, but there is much more…………..you get my point yet, relative to “separation of church and state”?
In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.”
Franklin, “History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity
of a public religion. . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749
Charles Carroll – signer of the Declaration of Independence |
” Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
“When I signed the Declaration of Independence, I had in view not only our independence of England but the toleration of all Sects, professing the Christian Religion, and communicating to them all great rights,”
John Witherspoon born in 1722,Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University —He became an ordained minister of the Gospel, his accomplishments include:
1. He published several books on Gospel sermons
2. He was involved in two American printings of the Bible
3. In regard to his view of salvation he said “I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ for there is no salvation in any other.”
Oct 06, 2011 @ 22:05:58
You’ve offered much to discuss; I’ll try to briefly touch on the high points in more or less the order you do.
With respect to the Kaskaskia, the fact that the treaty provided the items we both noted has never been a “point” of contention, so what about that you imagine needed to be “validated” is not apparent. The pertinent point, which I gather you don’t recognize, is that there is a world of difference between a treaty (which has the attributes of a contract between nations) and a statute (which prescribes laws to be obeyed). The U.S. can, without abridging the Constitution’s separation of religion and our government, provide another nation with items it wants in trade, even religious items.
Calling for me to use some common sense, you ask: “If the founding fathers meant for the 1st amendment to mean what it does today, then why was prayer and Bible reading in schools done from the beginning until the 1960s before it was declared unconstitutional?” I trust you realize that the founders intended the First Amendment to constrain only the federal government and not the states (which today operate the public schools you mention). That was the circumstance until the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War, guaranteeing individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. In deciding what rights are encompassed by the 14th Amendment, the courts have looked to the Bill of Rights, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and have ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from government established religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29 While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend that Amendment’s constraints to state and local governments. There’s your common sense.
You offer a list of quotations by various founders and others about religion. Your purpose for doing so, you do not say, so I’m not sure what to make of it. I’ll just offer three thoughts.
First, quotations such as these isolated from any context prove little or nothing. They may, in fact, mislead. For instance, you quote Jefferson to say “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” If you offer this as evidence that Jefferson was a “Christian,” you might want to reconsider. In context, what Jefferson said was that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity or the miracles recounted in the Bible or any number of other theological doctrines espoused by various Christian sects, but he did agree with the moral teachings of Jesus the man. It is in that sense that he regarded himself a “real Christian.” Many non-Christians, including many atheists, who share the same views of morality could make much the same claim. Few of today’s “Christians” though would count any of them or Jefferson as one of their own.
Second, take care in quoting the founders about religion. Fakes abound, and among them is the one you attribute to George Washington. See https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/washington-and-american-schools-revisited/
Third, while the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement largely coincided with another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
Oct 07, 2011 @ 09:47:19
Yep, Steve your right, I’m joining in again, lol, because we have another person here that means well, but doesn’t know what they are talking about. You can’t keep reading atheist publications about the founding of this country and think you know the truth. You have to research like Steve and I ,among many others have from original sources when possible.
Now back do Dougindeap ….“With respect to the Kaskaskia, the fact that the treaty provided the items we both noted has never been a “point” of contention, so what about that you imagine needed to be “validated” is not apparent.” ….treaty or no treaty, the 1st amendment applies. I have a news flash for you, a Treaty doesn’t override the Constitution or in this case the 1st amendment. Let’s let the Federal Government build a church for someone here in the US today and see how fast the ACLU files a lawsuit.
Relative to Bible in schools at the founding of this country…“I trust you realize that the founders intended the First Amendment to constrain only the federal government and not the states (which today operate the public schools you mention). That was the circumstance until the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War, “
Yes common sense Dougindeap….Ok then, let’s assume your correct here for the sake of argument…I still have a question for you to answer down the same line of thought….After the 14th amendment which according to you, not me, applied the 1st amendment to the States as well….why did we keep reading the Bible and having prayer, among many other things like the McGuffy reader for another 100 years if the States were then bound by the 14th? Not until the modern day courts came up with “separation of church and state” was this type thing declared unconstitutional….not at the time of the 14th amendment.
Dougindeap said, “Second, take care in quoting the founders about religion. Fakes abound, and among them is the one you attribute to George Washington.”……Bear in mind my friend…the George Washington quote is straight from his own personal journal….You’ve been reading those atheist publications to long without researching for yourself my friend and they’re leading you down the wrong path.
As I said before your letting your hatred for Christianity and Jesus Christ get in the way of historical facts and common sense. Historical facts that come from personal writings and even the Federal Government websites that you continue to ignore or twist to your viewpoint and wishes. John 3:16 ” For God so loved Dougindeap that he sent his only begotten Son, that if Dounindeap believes in him will have everlasting life”…
“Third, while the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs.Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier….”
As far as Thomas Jefferson being a Christian, you said, “If you offer this as evidence that Jefferson was a “Christian,” you might want to reconsider. “….NO, I don’t need to reconsider my position on Jefferson. Did you know the next Sunday after Jefferson wrote his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, he attended church ….where? He attended a church service conducted by John Leland, a prominent Baptist minister, in the halls of the House of Representatives. Throughout his presidency, he attended similar services, which were often held in the north wing of the Capitol. From 1807 to 1857 church services were held in a variety of government buildings where Congress, the Supreme Court, the War Office, and the Treasury were headquartered. On occasion a military band would play at government expense. Also at times an over flow crowd of 2,000 would attend services. Obviously neither Jefferson nor any other officials in the early Republic understood separation between church and state to mean that the federal government was precluded from permitting active support of opportunities for such worship. Indeed, they plainly recognized that the duty of civil government was to encourage public professions of faith. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0613s.jpg
Many founders were Christians of sort? You mean like preachers, as many were and several like Benjamin Franklin helped found Christian Universities like Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.”
John Witherspoon born in 1722,Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University —He became an ordained minister of the Gospel.
There were 56 signers of the Constitution, of that 56 twenty nine of them had seminary degrees.
Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas of the Constitution. The three most quoted people were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone, and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke, and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety four percent of the Founding Fathers’ quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible!
Lastly, on your quote from Alexis de Tocqueville..“I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state.”…your over looking the common knowledge at the time was the 1st amendment meant the Federal government couldn’t put one Christian sect above the other as Britain had done with the Church of England. Tocqueville did not mean “separation of church and state” as your applying it to way it is interpreted today by the courts since the 1960s and no other time in our early history. Why would the First Congress as I said earlier agreed on paying for 20,000 Bibles to be given to US citizens and schools if the 1st amendment was defined then as it is today in the courts?
In 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. A one year study was made on this request, and the House Judiciary Committee reported March 27, 1854…:
“Had the people (Founding Fathers) during the revolution, a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… At the time of the adoption of the constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect (denomination).”
The report continued:
“In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
Two months later, they wrote:
“The great vital and conservative element in our system (the thing that holds our system together) is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
You ignore the Church of the Holy Trinity V U.S 1892 Supreme Court ruling I referenced in an earlier post stating we are “a Christian Nation” and referenced 87 precedents for their ruling , and stated that more were available to use, from Founding Father’s material, Acts of Congress records, etc.
I’ll stop here, but the evidence for a Christian nation and Christian founders is overwhelming. It is only because a person chooses to accept the lies that they can believe such nonsense otherwise. The historical facts are heavily stacked against you.
Oct 08, 2011 @ 18:54:04
Mike,
I generally try to focus my comments on issues and evidence, rather than on the persons engaged in the discussion. You persist, though, in presuming to instruct me to do research of original sources like you and Steve have, so I’ll clue you in: I first began doing just that while in law school over thirty years ago (when I first encountered Story’s Commentaries while researching a law review article discussing the First Amendment) and have continued that research (professionally and personally) ever since. Not to diminish your efforts along these lines, but I suspect I’ve reviewed much of the original historical material you’ve seen and perhaps then some. I’ve read enough Supreme Court cases, as well, to recognize when you’re quoting one or another Justice’s remarks, even if you leave out (knowingly or unknowingly) the quotation marks and citations.
It is plain, too, that your research has been guided (or, more accurately, misguided) by the likes of Federer, DeMar, and Barton. Your latest comment abridges and reiterates some of the most common of their talking points. As I’ve tried, perhaps too gently, to convey, their work is rife with shoddy scholarship and downright disinformation that will only mislead you in your analysis and embarrass you in your discussions. You would do well to toss them in the trash where they belong.
About the Kaskaskia treaty, I’ll say nothing more, other than to observe that your legal opinion is off, just saying.
About the First Amendment constraining only the federal government, there is no need to assume I am correct for the sake of argument. Even cursory research will establish that is well recognized, as repeatedly confirmed by historians and the Supreme Court. You suggest that the passage of 72 years from the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the Court’s decision that it encompasses First Amendment rights somehow calls into question the legitimacy of that decision. Such time frames, though, are hardly unusual in constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, it was not until 2008, 217 years after adoption of the Second Amendment, that the Court decided that it provides an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and just last year that it decided the 14th Amendment protects that right from infringement by states.
While separation of church and state hardly began with the Everson decision in 1947, that case did, as you suggest, mark the beginning of a period of more frequent litigation of church-state issues. That trend came about, I think, largely for two reasons. First, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and the Court’s decision in 1947 that one effect of the amendment is to extend the First Amendment’s principles to the states, the occasions for church-state issues to arise multiplied greatly. Second, as governments, both federal and state, have grown in modern times and have played an increasing role in more and more aspects of our daily lives, the occasions for church-state issues to arise multiplied even further.
About the fake Washington quotation, I stand awestruck that you persist in claiming its authenticity when the falsity of it has been pointed out and the explanation, replete with sources, has been laid at your feet. I’m suspecting it’s the residual effects of the cool aid served by Barton et al.
And what’s this silliness about “atheist” publications. Separation of church and state is not an atheist concept. As I said before, thoroughly religious folk may establish a secular government and keep it separate from religion–and do so for the very reason they think that is good for their religion.
As for Jefferson, the historical evidence and commentary of his views on religion and particularly the meaning of the quotation you offered and I explained are voluminous and readily available–confirming what I said.
True enough, he attended religious ceremonies in the Capitol building. (That does not in the least contradict his expressed views on religion.) Caution should be exercised in assessing this historical evidence, since some are motivated to make more of things than may be warranted or even stretch the truth about them. The Speaker of the House did indeed announce in 1800 that the chaplains had proposed holding religious ceremonies in the House chamber on Sundays, the reason initially being that at the time there simply were no churches or other suitable buildings in all the Capitol. Such ceremonies were held and Jefferson attended some of them, and they continued for decades after churches had been built and thus the need to use the House chamber had passed. Contrary to many accounts, neither the Senate nor President Jefferson had a hand in the Speaker’s decision. Not mentioned in some accounts as well is that the ceremonies often were as much social as religious in nature (at a time when Washington otherwise lacked much social life).
Your commentary on the founders’ quotations based on the Bible is vintage Barton–which, no surprise, has been exposed as distorted at best and dishonest at worst. See, e.g., http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg9.htm and http://uncommonliberty.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-much-did-founders-quote-bible.html
You of course are correct to observe that de Tocqueville referred to “separation of church and state” as then envisioned and not as applied by courts today. Naturally, how could he do otherwise? He likely had in mind, though, not just the First Amendment, which affirmed the separation of church and the federal government, but also the separation of church and state governments, which had been the aim of the political disestablishment movement in the three decades before he visited America.
You repeat the misinformation about Congress and the Bible!?
The 1854 Judiciary Committee Report you quote was prompted by questions raised about the constitutionality of Congress’ appointment of chaplains–one of the very topics Madison addressed in his Detached Memoranda (quoted in my comment of 9/25/2011). As Madison’s commentary was not published until many years later, the Committee did not see or consider it. If they were acting as objective historians, they may have been persuaded to reach the same conclusion as Madison. But they acted as politicians issuing a political document, so knowledge of Madison’s understanding likely would have made little difference to them–though it certainly would have been interesting to see them struggle to sidestep it.
Some also make much of the Supreme Court Justice Brewer’s statement in Holy Trinity that “this is a Christian nation,” some (including you) even thinking the Court “ruled” to that effect. The Court held that a statute restricting importation of any alien under contract to perform labor or service did not preclude a church from contracting with an alien to come to this country and serve as its pastor. The Court based this holding on its finding that Congress intended simply to stay the influx of cheap, unskilled labor and did not intend to address circumstances such as the church’s contract with an alien pastor. It supported this finding, in dictum (i.e., a statement not essential to its holding), with the further thought that as this is a Christian nation, Congress would not have intended to restrict the church in this situation.
Brewer later clarified that he meant simply to observe that the nation’s people are largely Christian and not that the nation’s government or laws are somehow Christian: “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.” D. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) 12.
All in all, as one would expect, the available historical evidence does not all point in the same direction. For instance, while Washington offered Thanksgiving proclamations, seemingly seeing no problem in that, Jefferson refrained from issuing any such proclamations for the very reason he thought the Constitution precluded it. Madison too preferred not to issue any such proclamations, but upon being requested by Congress to do so, reluctantly issued one, though taking pains to word it so as merely to encourage those so inclined to celebrate the day. He later almost sheepishly acknowledged that had been a mistake. Also, Congress appointed chaplains for the two houses of the legislature and for the army and navy.
Historical evidence of this sort can be seen in at least two ways. On one hand, some of it can be seen, as you seemingly urge, as evidence that the founders considered the government’s actions to conform to the Constitution, thus indicating they did not intend the Constitution to prevent the government from taking actions of that sort with respect to religion. On the other hand, it can be seen as examples of early mistakes by Congress and the Executive, where they failed to conform to the Constitution. Mistakes of that sort are hardly unexpected or unusual. Recall that Congress made two other similar mistakes during Madison’s presidency, resulting in his vetoes of two bills neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. The government has made many such mistakes during our history, and continues to make them to this day.
Madison discussed just this point in his Detached Memoranda, excerpts of which I quoted earlier. As it happens, he not only stated plainly his understanding that the Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion by such acts as appointing chaplains for the houses of Congress and the army and navy or by issuing proclamations recommending thanksgiving, he also addressed the question of what to make of the government’s actions doing just that. Ever practical, he answered not with a demand these actions inconsistent with the Constitution be undone, but rather with an explanation to circumscribe their ill effect: “Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex [i.e., the law does not concern itself with trifles]: or to class it cum maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura [i.e., faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature].” Basically, he recognized that because too many people might be upset by reversing these actions, it would be politically difficult and perhaps infeasible to do so in order to adhere to the constitutional principle, and thus he proposed giving these particular missteps a pass, while at the same time assuring they are not regarded as legitimate precedent of what the Constitution means, so they do not influence future actions.
In any event, the very fact that evidence and arguments can be advanced in support of both sides of issues like this is one of the reasons we have courts and call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court has done just that–decisively, authoritatively, and, in the most important respects, unanimously. In its jurisprudence, the Court has, in effect, followed Madison’s advice, though not his suggested legal theories. The Court has confirmed the basic constitutional principle of separation of church and state, while also giving a pass to the appointment of chaplains for the house of Congress and army and navy and the issuance of religious proclamations, as well as various governmental statements or actions about religion on one or another theory. As the Wake Forest paper serves to show, notwithstanding sometimes lofty rhetoric by courts and commentators about an impenetrable wall of separation, as maintained by the courts, that wall is low and leaky enough to allow various connections between government and religion. Indeed, the exceptions and nuances recognized by the courts can confuse laymen and lawyers alike, occasionally prompting some to question the principle itself, since decisions in various cases may seem contradictory (e.g., depending on the circumstances, sometimes government display of the 10 commandments is okay and sometimes not). In any event, the Court’s rulings confirming the Constitution’s separation of church and state have long since become integral to the law and social fabric of our nation–not the sort of decisions to be overruled lightly.
Oct 06, 2011 @ 22:44:36
Doug,
I’m just joining this conversation, and I’m sure that Mike will also. You, like so many people don’t get the inference when we refer to the religion of the founders. Neither of us are scrutinizing the faith of either of them, but choose to believe that one cannot exist without the other. Even though the founders insured that the government would not supervise or lead a church, they did not intend to move away from it, and as Mike and I have quoted over and over proof that it was indeed in their thoughts.
Now, yes, we very much believe that the founders intended to separate the government from any form of interference in the peoples religion. I’m supposing that to include your inference that some were not Christian like. Point taken. That doesn’t mean that the inference in it’s morality isn’t there however. Your allusion to the Great Awakening …there were actually 4, that also don’t do justice to “Christianity” or a belief system…merely someones ideal of it. The Great Awakening of the 1740′s brought about democratic thought…as well as the belief of the free press and the belief that information should be shared and completely unbiased. These concepts in the period of the American Revolution. This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation’s first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, (to carry further and to quote Alexis de Tocqueville’s full observation), indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens. To say that we’ve moved away from that thinking is your argument, and the one which we will consistently deny that they ever intended.
Oct 08, 2011 @ 18:55:09
In keeping with what I said above, I agree with you that many of the founders desired religion and particularly Christianity (of some sort) to remain a dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. It is naturally to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Oct 08, 2011 @ 19:31:12
Well, Doug, you seem to have argued yourself into a corner with that one. While I understand that the founders chose the wording of the amendment to disqualify the government from forming a church or abridging a certain belief, where and how can you prove that it wasn’t an influence? Would it be the defense of Jefferson in the Danbury speech? How about the bible study lessons that he held weekly in the Senate chambers? How about consistent calls for prayer in each chamber…even the office of Chaplin? Oh, I don’t know, what about on the east Pediment, located at the rear entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view – it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments? How about the fact that as you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the East wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Tablets of Stone – held by a figure known as “The Majesty of Law” The tablets, a symbol of the Ten Commandments have the symbols I-X on them – in this singular case the sculptor meant those numbers to remind us of the first ten amendments to the Constitution – the Bill of Rights. What??? A religious reference in the High Court of a non-secular United States? Is that even possible, considering you said the founders washed out the religious connotations in the Constitution? There are plenty more…how about this? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C. Wait, that’s because it was all built after the founders…by people who didn’t realize they wanted “separation of church and state”?
Patrick Henry, Patriot and Founding Father of our country said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law…. an oligarchy…. the rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, “Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong, unconstitutional and too religious?
Your argument is moot. You can say what “reasonable people” say all you want…but a little research will tell you that the founders INTENDED to keep the moral overtones of religion in this country as guidance, and without it..this country will fail. There are far too many people who are stuffy enough to argue that religion isn’t what the founders based the rules on…and it is by those same rules that this country will fall. I will quote you another, and I’m not ashamed to do it at all…
But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 10:33…
Not speaking for Mike, but I do know that he believes the same as I. I choose to follow that God ordained the founders…and He alone established the law that the founders followed. It’s what made this country great and will keep it that way as long as men don’t quit denying it. Instead of working to prove they weren’t religious, how about opening your eyes to the substance that indeed they were. There are a lot more facts and objects to prove they WERE, than not.
Oct 08, 2011 @ 19:46:27
I need to proofread…I type way to fast…I must correct this sentence:
There are far too many people who are stuffy enough to argue that religion isn’t what the founders based the rules on…and it is by disavowing and disregarding those rules that this country will fall. I will quote you another, and I’m not ashamed to do it at all…
Oct 09, 2011 @ 11:18:50
Okay guys, the jig is up. That notoriously fake Patrick Henry quotation is a dead giveaway. See https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/fake-quotations-patrick-henry-on-religionists/ or http://www.religioustolerance.org/badquotes.htm No serious student of our history would pass that old joke off as genuine, but a disciple of Barton, Federer, DeMar, and their ilk might. The several fakes you two earlier mentioned suggested as much; this one pretty much confirms it. Most of the stuff you’ve served up here has been fake, distorted, or misinterpreted.
The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, Barton and other would-be champions of a religious right version of history reveal their fears that the real facts fall short of making their case. You appear, though, simply to have been duped by them, and so you pass along their tripe not knowing any better.
Now you’re on notice, though, that you’ve been had. While you could just get mad at Barton et al, you owe it to yourselves and your readers to check out real history from reputable, reliable sources. You could study history from such sources and compare that to the assertions of Barton and the others to tease out the many discrepancies. Much easier, though, would be simply to check out Rodda’s book (no excuses, since it is free online), since she has already done that. She presents the claims of Barton and the others (quoting them extensively), reviews the evidence and explanations they offer, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by them, all with documentation and references (also available online with but a click) so complete one can readily assess the facts for one’s self without the need to take either Rodda’s or Barton’s or the others’ word for it. If you like real detective work exposing liars for what they are, you’ll love her work.
Oct 09, 2011 @ 20:07:21
Doug said, ‘Okay guys, the jig is up” ….oh no as Steve said even discounting this one quote by Patrick Henry, the gig as you say is NOT up….You can not dispute all the facts Steve and I have presented, they are part of history.
I might also add to future readers, you are also saying the words of U. S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist’s Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) are in correct as well, because he says basically the same thing as Steve and I.
Of the 56 signers of the Constitution, at the least 50+ were Christians, not “sort of”, but many devote Christians. Even Benjamin Franklin that is usually declared a “deist” started his on Christian University as I have previously stated dedicated to the religion of Jesus Christ. Hardly a deist by today’s standards.
John Adams….AN Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, At Their Request On The Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837. ,,,,,,,,,
Was John Quincy Adams a Founder as in a signer of our founding documents? No? Was he a member of the Founding generation who would have a substantial impact on the course of American history? Yes.
Here’s what he said July 4th, 1837,
“…..Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? — And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birthday of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this, the birthday of the nation?
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human “government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before ?
And, in another section, President Adams stated:
The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent Nation of Christians, recognizing the general principles of the European law of nations.
James Madison said :
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
And here’s one from Patrick Henry:
“This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
Justice David Joseph Brewer —U.S. Supreme Court Justices
- “The American nation from its first settlement at Jamestown to this hour is based upon and permeated by the principles of the Bible.”
So anyone being completely honest with themselves can see Steve and I have done our homework in the past years…..as he said, you have proven none of our basic premise that the founders were Christians, intended there descendents to be Christians and established the Constitution based on Christian principles to be wrong….You can’t because the historical facts are overwhelmingly on our side, not yours. And there is plenty more we can present, you’ve not seen it all yet.
Oct 09, 2011 @ 22:23:34
Mike,
You seem unable to help yourself. Not only do you repeat the very same fake Patrick Henry quotation I pointed out to Steve, you add another fake–this time one attributed to James Madison. See http://candst.tripod.com/misq1.htm Congratulations! You guys have strung together more flat-out fakes than I have seen anyone do at one place and time in years of blogging on separation of church and state. Really, you need to take stock of your situation. You have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the remarkably shoddy historical “research” of some con artists.
I wish you well in your future studies–and hope you start with Rodda’s book, as it will help clear away the many serious misconceptions you have “learned” from the charlatans you have so far relied upon.
Oct 09, 2011 @ 22:35:48
Come on Doug….you haven’t refuted anything or proved the Founders didn’t mean what we said…..Talk about not being able to help yourself….let’s get out of that rut with Rodda’s book and look at the Historical Facts we’ve given you. Talk about swallowing something hook, line and sinker….you might want to examine yourself first in place of your atheist author’s books. Even if you discount the quotes of Patrick Henry and Madison, you have a boat load of other facts you can’t refute and haven’t, as a matter of fact you’ve dodged many of them completely.
One more thing: I have a retired Constitutional lawyer friend of mine that would stand by Steve and I’s facts I’m sure somewhere around 95%, we may differ slightly, but not much. Here’s a link to her website:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
I’m reminded of what the Bible says about the unsaved that go thru the tribulation period to come:
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 10-12
Oct 09, 2011 @ 17:14:07
Well, ok, so just attributed to Patrick Henry…from his will and an article about him in The Virginian. You don’t think he would have said it if he had thought of it? Let me quote, since we’ve researched, Patrick Henry’s words from his will…(I did do this)..”I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian Religion. If they had that and I had not given them one shilling they would have been rich; and if they had not that and I had given them all the world, they would be poor” The other quote came in comment and mistakenly attributed to him.
Patrick Henry also said this: “We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power… the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
When we make an error sir, we will correct it. You have still not established the fact that the founders didn’t intend religion to be a value to the framing of the Constitution, and in your arrogance, you never will. There is nothing here in either of these posts that is intentionally maligned.
Now, whether or not Patrick Henry said the exact quote above can be snoped and denied, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a religious man. Whether or not we proported it to be his quote is neither damaging to the claims that Mike or I have presented as to the founders intentions, and you cannot use that as de facto proof of it either.
Once again, your point is moot. Religion has always had a place with the founders. I did check both of those Patrick Henry quotes…and they are really his…
Notice? I think not, because our readers understand that we can make mistakes with a quote, but not with content.