Conditional Separation of Church and State?
January 20th, 2008 at 12:50pm Matt Margolis
A Republican can’t go within a block of a church without liberals making a stink about the so-called “separation of church and state.” Liberal pundits will go on TV criticizing, railing against evangelicals and the Religious Right…
So, why is it that Barack Obama can go to an Atlanta church (MLK Jr.’s church) and make a political speech, and I’m not seeing anyone making the same criticisms? Is it okay to embrace and to reach out to churchgoers if you’re a Democrat who supports gay “marriage” and abortion?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
52 Comments
1. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Its either rank hypocrisy, or perhaps Democrats know they don’t give a darn about religion, and thus making a political speech at an alleged church doesn’t make any difference…
2. liberalT | January 20th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
well - i suppose it depends on what they SAY at that speech. I have no problem with any candidate going into a church and giving a political speech. IDO have a problem with any candidate - democrat or republican - telling that crowd that we need to change the constitution to better reflect the Christian bible..
3. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
liberalT,
And what is wrong with that? I would still take the votes of the American people to carry out such a plan…what is wrong with someone ever expressing a political opinion?
4. LiberalMind | January 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
The Democrats and liberals use the idea of Church to bring people together, where as Conservative/Republicans use Church to divide.
No hypocrisy at all, just different goals.
5. js | January 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
What politician running for office DOESNT want the Christian vote?
The thing we need talked about is that they dont follow through on all the promises and hype they generate when they do it.
An old saying Mark;
Do you know how to tell if a politician is lying?
His lips move!!
6. liberalT | January 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Mark
I think we are discussing on different levels. There is nothing “wrong” with an expressing a political opinion. What I meant is that I strong disagree with that STATEMENT. Furthermore I could never vote for a candidate who wants to change the constitution to be in line with the Christian bible. You have to get off this “persecution of Christians buisnes” its just insane. More than 80% of Americans are Christians as well as every President in the history of the US and the vast majority of politicians past and present.
7. Ricorun | January 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Technically, there is no prohibition against any candidate making speeches in a church, or on church property, so long as the speech is not contained within an official exercise (e.g., a service), and so long as the church does not officially endorse said candidate — or officially reject others.
And technically, they can do that too, so long as the church is willing to forego tax-exempt status. A church can, however, officially endorse or reject specific issues without imperiling their tax-exempt status.
In that spirit (and with no intention to endorse Obama’s candidacy) I do agree with one thing he said: “”We can no longer build ourselves up by tearing others down.” If there is any part of that I don’t agree with it’d be the “no longer” part — IMO, it never was possible to build ourselves up by tearing others down.
8. Bigfoot | January 20th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The Democrats and liberals use the idea of Church to bring people together, where as Conservative/Republicans use Church to divide.
Hmmm, let’s see:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Don’t see distinction in there about “divisive” or “unifying”.
“…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.” -Thomas Jefferson
Nothing about “divisive” or “unifying” there, either.
No hypocrisy at all, just different goals.
No, Liberal Mind. Different rules for people with different goals or different opinions is the very essence of hypocrisy. Either BOTH Republicans/Conservatives AND Democrats/Liberals must keep their political speeches out of churches, or BOTH should be allowed to speak inside churches. And the rules governing what may or may not be said in churches, must be one and the same for BOTH sides.
9. Gar Wood | January 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“A Republican can’t go within a block of a church without liberals making a stink about the so-called “separation of church and state.” Liberal pundits will go on TV criticizing, railing against evangelicals and the Religious Right…”
Strawman. Let’s see some citations! I would argue that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit giving a political speech in a church, it actually protects such a speech.
“And what is wrong with that? I would still take the votes of the American people to carry out such a plan…what is wrong with someone ever expressing a political opinion?”
As liberalT points out, it’s the content of Huckabee’s expression that is deplorable. Codified religious tolerance has made this country great and has allowed it avoid religious conflicts that have plagued the rest of the world. A constitutional amendment specifically favoring a particular religion over others would invariably infringe on others’ religious practices, which goes against the very essence of America’s existence.
Gar Wood
10. js | January 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Religious tolerance? Like burning witches? I though I saw that as a something a while back. Face it, our founding fathers never ment to promote wicca or satanism, and our ball-less political leaders just dont have the courage to stand up and say it.
Our forefathers effective tolerance ended when one departed from the Christian tree.
11. AAR | January 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
What the American people fail to understand is that Liberals (Democrats) have turned the Constitution upside down.
The Constitution was meant to protect religion, but instead, Liberals — lead and supported by Democrats — now use the courts and the Constitution as “the” weapons to suppress, undermine, and attack religion — especially Christianity — while advocates of atheism have free reign to push their views, hedonistic lifestyle, and “religion” in our public schools, public buildings, and public lands!
At the time our nation was founded and the Constitution written and ratified, not only could politics be conducted in churches, but church was conducted in public buildings.
The American people have stood idly and complacently by while Liberal law-giver judges have twisted the intent and meaning of the Constitution.
AAR
12. JHL | January 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
(Ed. Note: Deleted - mindless insults.)
13. JPL | January 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
JHL — I see you’re playing with the nurses’ PC again. They really should be more careful.
14. Bama | January 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Nice one! You have to resort to language like THAT and you call HIM mindless? HAHAHAHA….
Everyone has an opinion.. …. you know the rest.. (yours stinks)
15. AAR | January 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
JHL,
What’s the matter… MoveOn, KOS, and the other nutty Lib blogs don’t want you?
You should be banned permanently!!!
AAR
16. Leslie Bates | January 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
As an atheist I have no problem with people who believe in God standing for and being elected to public office.
What I have a problem with are those who seek public office in order to play the role of God over us.
(I don’t need to mention names here, do I? (Looking to the Left.))
17. plainjane | January 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Is it okay to embrace and to reach out to churchgoers if you’re a Democrat who supports gay “marriage” and abortion? January 20th, 2008 at 12:50pm Matt Margolis
Doesn’t Rudy Giuliani, one of the Republican’s leading contenders for his party’s nomination share exactly these same views? I believe Rudy spent all summer courting the evangelicals and walked away with Pat Robertson’s endorsement. We just saw it as one loon reaching out to another loon; no big deal.
To your point, I could care less if politicians want to go into a church looking for votes. However if the church openly supports or endorses a candidate they must lose their tax exempt status; they have crossed the constitutional line separating church and state
18. Almiranta | January 20th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The Liberal “Mind” once again illustrates the simple-minded bigotry of the radical Left when he makes his asinine comment “The Democrats and liberals use the idea of Church to bring people together, where as Conservative/Republicans use Church to divide.”
I’ve seen a lot of stupid comments from the radical Left, some of it absolutely stunningly stupid, but this is kind of a synthesis of the general combination of ignorance and mean-spiritedness that marks the true believer on the far Left.
How would you feel about a candidate who belonged to a church which bragged that it is “unashamedly white”? Would you consider that to be a divisive position?
The fact of the matter is that while the Left has concocted the image of the oh-so-scary “Religious Right” and mounted campaigns against the imaginary bogie man of “theocracy”, at the very same time it has been the Democrats who have played the religion card over and over again, often in callous and transparent ploys—remember Billy Boy inviting all those ministers to the White House to “minister” to him after he got caught so publicly with his zipper down?
And it has been the Dems who have openly campaigned in churches, going so far as to have the ministers declare, from the pulpits, that their congregations should vote for the Dem candidate.
I agree with Rico—a church has the right to publicly and officially support a candidate, but should lose its tax exempt status when it does so. Overt sanctioned intrusion of religion into politics should mean loss of pure religious status, when it comes to things like tax exemptions.
With all the hype and hysteria about silly things like crosses on hillsides or creches in front of city halls, it is interesting that there is no attention at all paid to people like Gore and Kerry openly campaigning in churches, as both did, and having ministers instruct their flocks to vote for them.
Wait and see—-whoever gets the Dem nod will be doing exactly the same thing, with little or no outcry in the Agenda Media.
Personally, I am against the Identity Politics being played on both sides, with one man running AS a Christian, and another AS a black man, and another trying every now and then to run AS a woman. The blatant efforts to try to suck in voters based on emotion is tasteless and I hope all three fail in their efforts.
19. js | January 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Sorry plainjane,
The Constitution does not contain the words separation of Church and State. Not one time.
For the Congress to have made laws restricting Churches in any way, they have violated the Constitution. If the religion of a group of people compel them to endorse a candidate for President, Congress has no right to make any law prohibiting that endorsement.
That includes removing thier exempt status. That is a prohibition to prevent them from political activism.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
pro·hib·it /proʊˈhɪbɪt/ Pronunciation Key -
–verb (used with object) 1. to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law: Smoking is prohibited here.
2. to forbid the action of (a person).
3. to prevent; hinder.
20. plainjane | January 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
That includes removing thier exempt status. That is a prohibition to prevent them from political activism.20. js | January 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Then you learned nothing from 911. I don’t care if people gather together and worship old shoes in a tax exempt place of worship. But I think it is wrong for the head of any church; Moslem, Christian, Jewish etc to build a church in the U.S with tax exempt status and then use that place of prayer to preach hate and destruction of the United States and its political system.
21. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
ARR says, “The Constitution was meant to protect religion…” when, in reality, it was meant to protect government from religion.
John Adams opined that if religious zealots were not restrained by legal measures, they would “whip and crop, and pillory and roast.”
Ben Franklin was once quoted, “A man composed of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law.” Franklin also denied the divinity of Jesus, but saw in harm in letting other people beleive it.
22. js | January 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Funny.
Im quoting the Constitution. You two boys drop in un-confirmed statements by John Adams and Ben Franklin.
And neither of them agree with the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof; ”
This was made to insure the state did not dictate religion to the people, and that there were no laws restricting the peoples excercise of that religion. Its a double edged sword, in that the church cannot take power in the government and rule, nor can the government interfer with the people excercise of religion.
This is not to say that the people can not elect a priest or a bishop to office. It is to say that if that is done, such priest or bishop cannot dictate to the people what/when/how they practice religion. There is nothing in the constitution that gave congress the right to make such a law against a church.
23. js | January 20th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Do you two understand the meaning of “NO LAW”?
24. AAR | January 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Christian Wright,
From the Library of Congress Website…
AAR
25. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Article II of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli document states: “As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The language of that treaty was passed unanimously by Congress and signed by George Washington.
I think that says enough.
The statements by Adams and Franklin are well documented and accepted as true.
Just like this one from Thomas Jefferson in a hand-written letter to a friend you can still find in the Library of Congress, “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
26. AAR | January 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Christian Wright,
Post #25… Actions speak louder than words!
Read the dates in post #25. They were after 1797!
Thomas Jefferson supported using the Bible as a textbook in the public schools.
Congress authorized printing of the Bible!
History clearly shows that religion was part of America and our founding fathers intended to keep it there — contrary to what you atheists may believe!!!
AAR
27. js | January 20th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
CW,
All well and told, I dont believe you really have a grasp on all that. The article you speak of was article 11 by that way, demonstrating matter of factly how little you pay attention.
As to your quotes, phooey. Most of the saying liberals site are outright lies, just like most of thier arguements.
28. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
CW,
And the peace treaty between the United States and Britain ending the Revolutionary War? Proclaimed, and I quote, “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” Not just acknowledging God, but acknowledging the Christian conception of God. And the first sentence after that? It says that Divine Providence moved his Britannic Majesty to seek peace! And the signatures were affixed following, “Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.”
Our Lord, CW, is Jesus.
Additionally:
A 1783 treaty was Sweden was signed “in the year of our Lord”.
A 1787 treat with Morocco was done, “in the name of Almighty God”. It also notes that the date of the treaty, year of Hegira 1200, began on on the 28th of June in the year of Our Lord, 1786.
A 1794 treaty with Britain amended “in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred ninety six.”
A 1795 treaty with Algiers? No mention of the US not being a Christian nation.
A 1796 treaty with Tripoli? Makes the mention you note, but in article 11.
A 1797 treaty with Tunis? Opens with the statement, “God is infinite”. It also states, I quote, “and the most distinguished and honored President of the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah”. The Messiah = Jesus. It was signed in Tunis, “in the year of the Christian era…”
A 1799 treaty with France, completed in “Anno Domini 1800″. Do I have to translate “Anno Domini” for you?
An 1805 treaty with Tripoli? Modifies the 1797 treaty and DOES NOT say that the US is not founded on the Christian religion - it merely notes that the US bears no enmity towards the Moslem religion.
An 1815 treaty with Algiers repeats the formulation of the 1805 treaty with Tripoli - merely noting that the US bears no enmity towards the Moslem religion.
An 1816 treaty with Sweden was done “In the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity”.
An 1816 treaty with Algiers (a renewal of the older treaty) once again merely states the US bears no enmity towards Islam.
An 1818 treaty with Britain done in “the year of Our Lord”.
An 1822 treaty with Britain done in “the year of Our Lord”.
An 1822 treaty with France done in “A.D. 1822″. Shall I translate “A.D.” for you?
An 1824 treaty with Algiers, notes that it is the “Christian year” 1824.
An 1824 treaty with Russia done, “in the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity”.
An 1824 treaty with Columbia done, “In the name of God, Author and Legislator of the Universe”.
An 1825 treaty with the (now-defunct) Federation of Central America was done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1826 treaty with Denmark done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1827 treaty with Sweden and Norway done, “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity”.
An 1827 treaty with Britain done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with three of the Hanse Republics done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Mexico done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Prussia done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Brazil done, “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity”.
Shall I go on? I’ll let you keep your one-off, if that is what you want…but if you want to say that one treaty shows we’re not a Christian nation, then I’ve got a lot more that show we are…
Source: Library of Congress
29. AAR | January 20th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
CW,
As to Benjamin Franklin’s religious beliefs and a few of his quotes…
And echoing Mark’s comment… we can go on, and on, and on!!!
AAR
30. Gar Wood | January 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
Mark,
“In the year of Our Lord” also appears in the Constitution. It is indicative of an epoch, not any specific policy.
“but if you want to say that one treaty shows we’re not a Christian nation, then I’ve got a lot more that show we are…”
If by “Christian nation,” you mean that America is predominantly Christian, then I agree with you completely. But if by “Christian nation,” you mean that the Constitution somehow favors Christianity over other religions, you would have no textual basis to do so.
I’m also still waiting to see the original purpose of this thread, which is a hypocritical liberal critique of Republicans that speak in churches. I strongly suspect that you, as usual, made it up.
Gar Wood
31. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 12:20 am
A couple more, this one from Thomas Jefferson - Religious Freedom Act (First paragraph or so).
John Dickinson on the Constitution - April 17, 1788.
32. Christian Wright | January 21st, 2008 at 6:24 am
In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise” (August 15, 1820). In saying this, Jefferson was merely expressing the widely held Deistic view of his time, which rejected the mysticism of the Bible and relied on natural law and human reason to explain why the world is as it is. Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (April 11, 1823). These were hardly the words of a devout Bible-believer.
Jefferson didn’t just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was “the inspired word of God”; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites” (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, “Politics and Religious Illiteracy,” Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson’s writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their “Christian-nation” claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on “biblical principles.” The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson’s time knew where he stood on “biblical principles,” and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency.
33. Christian Wright | January 21st, 2008 at 6:30 am
William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson’s character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn “accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality’” (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a “true infidel” and insisted that “(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected” (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for “Christians to defeat the `infidel’ from Virginia”
Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence… vote for Mr. Jefferson?… As to myself, were Mr. Jefferson connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation “Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone” (quoted by Padover, p. 117).
Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson’s election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn’t.
In the heat of the campaign Jefferson wrote a letter to Benjamin Rush in which he angrily commented on the clerical efforts to assassinate his personal character “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” That statement has been inscribed on Jefferson’s monument in Washington. Most people who read it no doubt think that Jefferson was referring to political tyrants like the King of England, but in reality, he was referring to the fundamentalist clergymen of his day.
After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional. Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Before sending the letter to Danbury, Jefferson asked his attorney general, Levi Lincoln, to review it. Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the letter a means of “sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets” (quoted by Rob Boston in “Myths and Mischief,” Church and State, March 1992). If this was indeed Jefferson’s wish, he certainly succeeded. Twice, in Reynolds vs. the United States (1879) and Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court cited Jefferson’s letter as “an authoritative declaration of the scope of the [First] Amendment” and agreed that the intention of the First Amendment was “to erect `a wall of separation between church and state.’” Confronted with evidence like this, some fundamentalists will admit that Thomas Jefferson was not a Bible-believer but will insist that most of the other “founding fathers”–men like Washington, Madison, and Franklin–were Christians whose intention during the formative years of our country was to establish a “Christian nation.” Again, however, history does not support their claim.
James Madison, Jefferson’s close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities”.
Realizing that whatever legislation an elected assembly passed can be later repealed, Jefferson ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any legislative body that would be so presumptuous “And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right” (emphasis added).
34. Lightning | January 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
For the life of me I cannot understand how these liberal idiots expect anyone to believe them when they post such stupid information.
When George Washington took the oath as first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, he added this four-word prayer of his own: “So help me God.”
These words are still used in official oaths by Americans talking public office, in courts of justice, and in other legal proceedings. Washington’s words show that he was a man who believed in asking God’s help in every part of our private and public lives.
35. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
CW,
John Adams and John Hancock:
John Adams:
AAR
36. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 10:32 am
CW,
Follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson… Return God to America!
AAR
37. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
CW,
Follow the example and lead of Thomas Jefferson… Return God, religion, and church services to our public offices and buildings!
AAR
38. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
CW,
While Thomas Jefferson was president of the school board, in 1804, Bible reading and the use of the Bible as a textbook was implemented in the first public schools of the District of Columbia.
Part of the curricular plan designed by Thomas Jefferson for the University of Virginia was moral instruction, including “the proof of the being of a God, the Creator” in public schools to be taught by teachers.
Follow the example and lead of Thomas Jefferson… Return God, the Bible, prayer to our public schools!
AAR
39. js | January 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. No man alive can defend the fact that this nation was founded on Christian principals.
It was drafted by Thomas Jefferson.
It begins by invoking inalienable right given by God;
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
and it ends appealing to God;
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies………
Its that simple. There is no dispute.
40. Christian Wright | January 21st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Guys, I am not saying the founding fathers did not beleive in God. They were Deists. Deists beleive in God. They just don’t beleive in the divinity of Jesus.
As for Washington’s membership in the vestry, for several years he did actively serve as one of the twelve vestrymen of Truro parish, Virginia, as had also his father. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that he was a Christian believer. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman. On this matter, Paul F. Boller made this observation
Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional religious zeal from the mere fact of membership.* Even Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. Consisting of the leading gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom, like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the County Court and of the House of Burgeses), the parish vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers and paid their salaries (George Washington & Religion, Dallas Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 26).
A footnote where the asterisk appears cited Meade as proof that avowed unbelievers sometimes served as vestrymen “As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857, `Even Mr. Jefferson and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence’” (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191).
Clearly, then, one cannot assume from Washington’s presence at church services and his membership in the Truro parish vestry that he was a Christian believer. Is there any other evidence to suggest that he was a Christian? The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, preached a sermon in October 1831 in which he stated that “among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism” (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15). He went on to describe Washington as a “great and good man” but “not a professor of religion.” Wilson said that he was “really a typical eighteenth century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook” (Ibid.).
41. js | January 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
If they were deist, they would have no need to invoke a God that no longer existed.
Why do you spew so much hot air? Do you think we are all fools….I doubt you even know what Deists are..based on your own writting!!
Ill help ya son;
de·ism (dē’ĭz’əm, dā’-) Pronunciation Key
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
42. Christian Wright | January 21st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
A Deist is a person that beleives in a god.
A Deist does not beleive in religion, because he/she does not think any man or group of men can divine the will of God.
That is what a Deist is and that is how the founding fathers identified themselves.
43. js | January 21st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
So tell us this einstein.
Each of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution identified themselves and thier religions.
Why didnt any of the them present themselves as diest if they sat before the body of men who endorsed freedom of religion?
They didnt, because they werent. The furthest away from Christianity that any one of them declared was Unitarianism. Are you telling us they lied? Based on what evidence?
Your clueless.
44. Christian Wright | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 am
Why don’t you just read the letters they wrote and the books they published? Most were self-identified Diests.
They endorsed freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Freedom of religion so no man can be discriminated for his faith (this is a Diest beleif) and freedom from religion so no man can be forced to worship a government established faith.
Just buy some books that they wrote themselves. Start with Tom Paine’s “The Age of Reason”. This will be a hard read for you because he attacks Christianity and calls Jesus a fable.
45. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
Such naivity CW.
You missed the point again.
Besides, pretty much every contribution Payne made to the US were erradicated because of his religious views.
Do you really think that Diests are unique? Heretical teachings about the Bible have existed since long before Payne breathed his first breath.
To face the truth, which you are not doing, it is not a fact that a very few of the signers of the Constitution imposed thier will upon the rest, and lied to them about thier religious beliefs.
The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that “education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”
” Let…statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educating their little boys and girls…and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” Samuel Adams
“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.” Benjamin Franklin
“The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” John Quincy Adams
The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase “protection of divine providence”.
Five to those who can admit the phrase “created equal” means created by God, not evolved from chaos.
PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII .
The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the United States of America for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America;
It is nothing more than nonsense to suggest that the founding fathers were deist. Beyond that, a Deist has no belief that God will intervene in the affairs of men, so once again, explain this, because the Declaration and the Constitution both rely on invoking the blessings of God, without which, the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no cause of action. Just like George Washington, who coined the phrase every President repeated when they swear them into office; So Help me God.
No, the founding Fathers were Christians, there is no dispute there, no true deist would have a need to invoke God because they believe in reason and nature.
46. AAR | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
CW,
Rather than reading some old letters about what might have been, read the actual history about what was!
Read about the actions, deeds, and lifestyles of the people when they wrote and ratified the Constitution and how they lived and implemented the Constitution afterwards! It’s clear from their actions what they meant and intended — and it’s NOT YOUR LIBERAL REVISIONIST VERSION OF HISTORY!!!
Stop reading old letters and read what those people did and how they lived and ran government?
Oh, I know. You want people to ignore what was — and believe instead in something that was only discussed in letters!
AAR
47. Christian Wright | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I was wondering why you are insisting on something that simply is not.
I found some interesting articles explaining why some Christians want to beleive this nation was founded on Christian principles.
After reading these articles I realized arguing with you will not work.
I suppose it does not do any harm for you to beleive in your notion. Some people believe the Earth is flat and evolution is false. They only hurt themselves.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation
48. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
CW,
Yeah, always use a site that supports your views rather than go to all the trouble to seek out the truth.
However, a little reality doesn’t hurt now then. Eh?
–Jeremiah–
49. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Isaiah 33:22
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; it is he who will save us.
–Jeremiah–
50. AAR | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
CW,
Your attempt to ingore actual history and rewrite it to suit and justify your own Liberals opinions and agenda WILL NOT WORK!!!
AAR
51. allstate insurance&hellip | January 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
allstate insurance
allstate insurance generic cialis car insurance quotes order ambien online In clinical of the type furazolidone doses of contribute independently strengths and habits such dose you take take that product moisten the mouth One It should blood flow to pa…
52. Courts Home Furnishing&hellip | March 24th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Courts Home Furnishing
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.