Founding Fathers most firmly

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I firmly agree with a seperation of Church and State, but I do believe that a leader is going to make his decisions with his personal convictions. This would be the case for anyone in any position, imo.

Also, I don't listen to a lot of talk radio, but I heard someone the other day saying that the Seperation of Church and State is simply not true, and it is blown out of proportion, etc. etc.

What is the basis of that argument?
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
The Framers did not mean a separation of church and state as most people believe today. What they said is that government has no business adopting what would amount to an "official" state or national religion. Separation of church and state exists only in the imagine and poorly interpreted versions of what was intended.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Ferdville,

This is exactly the right wing popular revisionism I was talking about. They most certainly DID mean more than the establishment of a state religion. Stay tuned.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
In James Madison's words:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Another post from one of the links above:


The U.S. Constitution


The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the
Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:


"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:


"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE - ZERO - FOR THE RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS ATTEMPT TO INSERT THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

THIS BELIEF IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND IS A THREAT TO FABRIC OF THIS NATION AND THE LIBERTY OF US ALL.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Oh yeah and Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli:

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-


Notice the phrase "...is not in any sense..."
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
ocelot--when I first started reading your posts many months ago, you came off as a very angry person so I dismissed most of what you said. Over the last few months, I have been proven wrong and have had some good dialogue with you over certain topics.

This topic, though, seems to enrage you. I was just wondering what's at the heart of that anger towards religion. The reason I ask is your intolerance and constant bashing of religion is absolutely no different the bible beaters forcing religion upon you.

hopefully in religious discussions, noone has ever felt that I am pressing my religion on anyone because I firmly believe in the Freedom of Religion (including lack thereof).

I guess my point is that not every religious person falls under the "religious fundamentalists" that you freely throw around.

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

This is something I completely agree with, and I don't I have heard anyone stating that God appointed Bush (or any other President) to office similar to Kings of old. But I don't believe this one statement really proves anything other than that.

More comments later, but I'm not necessarily on the opposing side of this argument as you.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Thanks Dawg.

I am not opposed to people practicing any form of religion they wish but it seems some of the Churches use their pulpits to advise their congregations not only how to think but how to vote.
When people like Freeze start mangling historical facts and citing the Founding Fathers to justify their personal moral / political code I believe it must be answered.

It is my view that whenever a government of diverse peoples has tried to sanction one religion over others it has led to persecution repression and ultimately bloodshed. Many immigrants have come to this country to escape that exact thing.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
And Dawg, just wanna say I've found you to be a fair-minded chap. I should try to not get so riled up I suppose.

Take care.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
elimination and restriction of religious practice is a little different than the state endorsing a religion dont you think?

no one advocates an endorsement but lots of people believe that the founders did not mean for an outright restriction of religion in all public places as the ACLU would like us to believe

and there are plenty of historical documents which advocate the free exercise of religion wherever one may choose NOT restricted from schools, prayer in legistlative sessions, etc.etc.

so really your posts do not say anything regarding my concerns as i agree that the state shoudl not adopt any particular religion as the Church of England and it corruption with the state demonstrated most acutely the problems that came along with this

nor shoudl the state adopt atheism as its religion as the ACLU would like it to do
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Public schools are supported by public tax dollars which are contributed by citizens of all varieties of faiths. The Court has rightly ruled on this matter. Probably legislative sessions will eventually follow suit.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
totally disagree on the rulings as they have essentially endorsed atheism as the state sponsored religion

as your quotes suggest, this is not what the founders inteneded
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top