100 Dollars to....

[gophergeorge]

The person who can find "Separation of Church and State" in our Constitution.

FoxNews last night reported a story of a teacher in (where else but) California who was suspended for using the Declaration of Independence because it mentioned "God" (actually, I think it says "Creator". The principal said he was "forcing his religious beliefs (paraphrased)" on the students....

And the democRATS wonder why Kerry got his ass handed to him....

[smackdaddy11]

You'll keep your money.

It isn't there.

[IcemanCometh]

Find were it says you can have a gun. Its not there either. The supreme court however has determined what is and is not constitutional. Try knowing something about the way our system of government works.

[Spurminator]

The actions of a few wackos doesn't make the intent of the Court's interpretation wrong.

[Hook Dem]

http://tinypic.com/pbqc6

[2pac]

An Amendment is simply an addition to the Constitution. Therefor, you can find where it says you can have guns in the second amendment to the Constitution.

[gophergeorge]

You'll keep your money.

It isn't there.


Shhh.... Don't tell the liberals that.... :)

[spurster]

Well, the New Testament doesn't mention the Trinity doctrine, so I guess that's no good either.

[MannyIsGod]

This case is idiotic.

I actually saw Jerry Fallwall (sp?) get his ass handed to him in a seperation arguement last night by Al Sharpton. I'm not really an Al Sharpton fan, but everytime I see this guy debate I am so damn impressed.

Anyhow, if you want what they have in the Middle East, go ahead and forget about seperation of church and state. We could have a good ole christian Taliban here.

[JoeChalupa]

The Constitution is open to interpretation and the Supreme Court, and I may be wrong, has ruled that it does call for separation of Church and State so that the government cannot impose religion on the people. Am I wrong?

It also says that all men are created equal, not only white heterosexual males. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says I have a right to own a gun but the Court has interpreted that it does.
I see it as the State's rights to have militias. But I guess that is why I'm not on the Supreme Court.

But I do think that the writers of the Constitution didn't want government imposing their religious beliefs on the people.

And I also think that the teacher is a whacko but not all liberals are.
Thank ya, thank ya very much.

[smackdaddy11]

100% correct, Joe


"Try knowing something about the way our system of government works."

Thanks for the lecture. Have any idea how, where and when the debate came into the public realm?

Why don't you read this and understand Judge Black misinterpreted Jeffersons writings. You say interpret the law. It just takes one wrong ruling and future Judges use his ruling and the snowball starts.


http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton



In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Endnotes:

1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.



Keep Gov't out of religion. Heard of the Church of England? That is my next suggested reading. Go read about the 1600's and the relationship of the church with the gov't.

[gophergeorge]

I need to study this.... I love TJ....

[IcemanCometh]

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to the restoration of the constitutional, moral, and religious foundation on which America was built.

yeah uhm ok

[smackdaddy11]

WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to the restoration of the constitutional, moral, and religious foundation on which America was built.

Wonderful. Now debunk and prove that the listed historical events are untrue.

yeah uhm ok

[MannyIsGod]

See, when someone posts something from Arab sources, you guys freak, then someone posts something from a group with an agenda on the opposite end of the spectrum, not in the middle, and people start to hail it.

credibility anyone?

[smackdaddy11]

See, when someone posts something from Arab sources, you guys freak, then someone posts something from a group with an agenda on the opposite end of the spectrum, not in the middle, and people start to hail it.

I agree. When viewing a source, the #1 issue is their agenda. You must understand it. Do you ever read Al Jazeera's website? It's AlJihad TV. This is why proven, factual information MUST be used to form a conclusion. Not someones personal beliefs.

I still ask someone to disprove these documented, historical events. This is how it went down over history. Jefferson didn't mean keep the church out of gov't, he meant keep gov't out of the church. His letter was used to make a ruling that didn't jive with the meaning of said letter.

As I told gophergeorge yesterday, he won't lose 100.00.

[scott]

Great source, Smackdaddy, care to post the parts of Jefferson's writings that the WallBuilders conspicuously replaced with "..."

[smackdaddy11]

Fine. Ignore their "commentary."

I used this article because of the numerous references to not only the origianl letter, but other writings showing his overall belief on the issue. Read the original letter written by Jefferson and his other documented writings on this subject. That is documented history. If you cannot see he was referring to keeping gov't out of the church, your not reading objectively.

[spurster]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 499.)

[Guru of Nothing]

Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian?

[MannyIsGod]

Fine, let me ask plain and simple. Are you for a Theocracy? And if so, which religion will take the leading role?

[Al Sharpton]

Am I right to assume this Gopher feller is a religious person?

[Hook Dem]

Am I right to assume this Gopher feller is a religious person?
More like a God fearing person!

[smackdaddy11]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 499.)

Great site. Leads me to ask this:

Since The ACLU believes all Christian symbols, celebrations, meetings, and references should be banned from the "public square" and have used the 1947 ruling as the basis, why is this being allowed and the ACLU is ignoring it:

http://americandaily.com/article/5514

"Over the last few years, this practice has been quietly spreading into this nation's government schools system. In 1997, the U.S. based Council on Islamic Education produced a 'lesson plan' entitled "Muslim Holidays" for U.S. children. The manual is full of politically-correct information about Islam as well as tips on how teachers can circumvent regulations against religion. Since that time, over 4,000 U.S. teachers have used it in their classrooms with the blessing of their respective school officials.


This more than anything shows the ACLU for what they are...Another hypocritical, hate-America group. Can you imagine the fallout if 4,000 teachers brought Christian bibles or even a picture of Jesus into their classrooms?"


Using "multi-culturalism" as the acceptable arguement for what you apply to what Jefferson said is a lie. If you are a firm believer in keeping Christianity out, the belief should be the same for Islam or any other religion. The ACLU has created the place we are today. Where is the outcry against this?



Back to the subject at hand.




In the Notes [on the State of Virginia] Jefferson elaborated his views on government's keeping its distance from all religious affairs and religious opinions. "The legitimate powers of government," he wrote, "extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 42-43. )

Ok. Injurous to teach Christianity, but OK to teach Islam.



[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.


Christianity sects. That is what Jefferson was discussing about sects.

[MannyIsGod]

I love it when you talk to people, and instead of arguing with what you post, they go and find a wacked out group who takes tihngs to the extreme and try to present that view as the view you are projecting.

Once again, do you want to setup a theocracy?

[spurster]

Discuss religion in the classroom? Certainly, though if it were a specific high school course, there would a major battle over textbooks.

Promote religion in the classroom? No.

Of course, some nuts will think any discussion is promotion (similar to thinking that any discussion of sex in the classroom means promoting it).

And some nuts will think that only the majority religion should be discussed/displayed.

[smackdaddy11]

Fine, let me ask plain and simple. Are you for a Theocracy? And if so, which religion will take the leading role?


No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

They should be able to use schools to meet.

There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.) :shootme

I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.



I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.

[smackdaddy11]

Discuss religion in the classroom? Certainly, though if it were a specific high school course, there would a major battle over textbooks.

A California teacher was banned from discussing the Declaration of Independence because it referred to God.


Promote religion in the classroom? No.

Is discussing the symbols and the events in a religions year promoting it?


Of course, some nuts will think any discussion is promotion (similar to thinking that any discussion of sex in the classroom means promoting it).

See: ACLU



And some nuts will think that only the majority religion should be discussed/displayed.

See: Radical members of ALL religions.

I'm not against religious teachings in the classroom, just eliminating the one that our constitution is based on.

[MannyIsGod]

hmm, so people who do not believe that a god exists must have to go through prayer ?

[Spurminator]

I think any group prayer in school is unnecessary. Children should not be punished for choosing to pray if it does not disrupt class, but there's no need for a school-wide prayer.

I think some schools have gone overboard in not alowing religious groups to meet after school, but anything between 7am and 3pm should be kept neutral and secular.

[MannyIsGod]

No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

And they are in danger of losing this how?



They should be able to use schools to meet.
[quote]

I don't want my tax dollars used in any way by any religions.

[quote]
There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

oh, so now you're telling other people what types of prayer they could agree with. interesting. What about those who simply don't beliving in praying? Why can't a moment of silence where anyone can do what they damn well please suffice? Better yet, why does it have to be at school?


I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.) :shootme

I agree


I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

Any religion can have space for their celebrations, on private not public land.


I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe this country was also founded on the values of slavery, manifest destiny, and non equal rights.

I believe none of that has any bearing on what is right for society.


I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

nor should anyone be harrased out of any of their beliefs


I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.


good,but this isn't the issue, nor is it in danger.



I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.

fair enough, but religion still is a private matter and has no placeoutside of a historical and factual context in school.

[gophergeorge]

I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


What the hell does this have to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

And please don't "hijack" this into a impeachment thread.... :) I'm a justa wonderin?

[JoeChalupa]

Churches, mosques and other places of worship are for prayer.

As for me I can pray at anytime and anyplace and nobody would be the wiser because I don't have to yell to the world that I'm praying because it is none of your business. Be humble in prayer is my motto.

What's the motto with you?

[smackdaddy11]

What the hell does this have to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

And please don't "hijack" this into a impeachment thread.... :) I'm a justa wonderin?


Geez. Get off my back. You started this and still have your hundred. :spin

Just wanted to show I'm not a religious zealot.




And they are in danger of losing this how?

Manger scene in the town square.


oh, so now you're telling other people what types of prayer they could agree with. interesting. What about those who simply don't beliving in praying? Why can't a moment of silence where anyone can do what they damn well please suffice? Better yet, why does it have to be at school?

If you don't believe in prayer, during the speech, I guess this is what causes "injury" to people, you can think about the chich with the big boobs. All you need to do is not speak during the positive message. I can go for a moment of silence. I believe a positive morning message would be better. Secularist are supposed to believe in Humanism. Humaism has positive messages.



Any religion can have space for their celebrations, on private not public land.

Above you say they have the ability for religion in the public square. Now you say only on private property.


I believe this country was also founded on the values of slavery, manifest destiny, and non equal rights. I believe none of that has any bearing on what is right for society.

Now, the individual right for whatever they want is exceeding the rights of what the majority want. What about their rights?

Yours is a secular society. Sorry, but the U.S.A. isn't one. Nothing wrong with one if that is what you want but don't change MY RIGHTS to a non secular one.


good,but this isn't the issue, nor is it in danger

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is in danger. The problem is you won't see it till 30 years from now. Go look at the demographic issues facing Europe. It will be Islam East in a short time. If you think that isn't a threat to the American way of life, you need to get your head out of the sand.


fair enough, but religion still is a private matter and has no placeoutside of a historical and factual context in school.

You do realize Historical and Factual is being banned also. I already showed where Islam gets the ability but the U.S. Constitution is not allowed. The ACLU, who has gotten the country into this mess is continuing the barrage. Somewhere in the middle most people meet. The ACLU is as far left as it gets. There are new groups of lawyers who are starting to attack the ACLU. I hope they are sucessful.

[FredFlash]

Dear Smackdaddy11:

It is grossly misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was developed in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was preceded by over two hundred and fifty years of writings regarding the Separation between Church and State.

Elisha Williams was preaching the Separation of Church and State in New England back in 1774 as the "Right of Private Judgment in Matters of Religion." Founding Father Samuel Stillman was advocating for it in 1779 as “the Line Between the Things that Belong to Caesar, and Those Things that Belong to God.”

Thomas Jefferson was not even the first writer to draw on the idea of “separation” or the notion of a “wall” to designate, illustrate or explain the legal concept of no civil-temporal-government power over the duty which we owe to the Creator. Thomas Jefferson in all likelihood borrowed the "wall of separation" phrase from James Burgh.

James Burgh

James Burgh (1714-1775) was radical Commonwealth Whig who was one of Britain's foremost spokesman for political reform whose writings influenced political thought in revolutionary America. Burgh brought to his writings a dissenter's zeal for religious toleration and a distrust of established churches. Indeed, his antipathy toward ecclesiastical establishments was a logical extension of his staunch defense of religious toleration.

Burgh thought religion was a matter between God and one's conscience; and he contended that two citizens with different religious views are "both equally fit for being employed, in the service of our country." He alerted his audience to the potential crippling influences of established churches. Danger existed, he warned, in "a church's getting too much power into her hands, and turning religion into a mere state-engine."

Therefore, in his work Crito (1766, 1767), Burgh proposed building "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." He dismissed the conventional argument that the public administration of the church was necessary to preserve its salutary influence in society.
"I will fairly tell you what will be the consequences of your setting up such a mixed-mungrel-spiritual-temporal-secular-ecclesiastical establishment. You will make the dispensers of religion despicable and odious to all men of sense, and will destroy the spirituality, in which consists the: whole value, of religion. . . . Shew yourselves superior to all these follies and knaveries. Put into the hands of the people the clerical emoluments; and let them give them to whom they will; choosing their public teachers, and maintaining them decently, but moderately, as becomes their spiritual character. We have in our times a proof from the conduct of some among us, in respect of the appointment of their public administrators of religion, that such a scheme will answer all the necessary purposes, and prevent infinite corruption;--ecclesiastical corruption; the most odious of all corruption.
Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil. Do not send a graceless officer, reeking from the anus of his trull, to the performance of a holy rite of religion, as a test for his holding the command of a regiment. To profane, in such a manner, a religion, which you pretend to reverence, is an impiety sufficient to bring down upon your heads, the roof of the sacred building you thus defile."

Samuel Stillman

One of the founding fathers was a Baptist minister named Samuel Stillman. He voted in favor of giving legal effect to the U. S. Constitution as a delegate to the 1788 Convention of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Stillman had preached, since 1779, the necessity for a line between the things that belong to Caesar, and those things that belong to God. He maintained that the government ought not in any manner to be involved in the salvation of souls and that it had no authority to establish our sentiments in religion or the manner in which we would express them.

The authority for Stillman’s principle of no government authority over religious matters was the Savior’s directive to ”Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” It was “most evident” to Stillman that the Lord was trying to teach us that there are some matters where the government has no authority.

Conclusion

It is misleading to imply that the Separation of Church and State was first developed or formulated in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. It was formulated in the early 1500’s and Thomas Jefferson was merely one of hundreds of individuals who advocated it.

FVF

[Yonivore]

Find were it says you can have a gun. Its not there either. The supreme court however has determined what is and is not constitutional. Try knowing something about the way our system of government works.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms..." isn't in the constitution?

[Yonivore]

The constitution is specifically about restrictions on government. The establishment clause is designed to prevent government from favoring one religion over another or from "establishing" a government religion. There's nothing that says a person can't express their religious beliefs...in any context, except in the context of their position with the government.

There is no separation of church and state, it's a protection of the people against undue religious influence of the government.

[clubalien]

shall establish no relgion part

guns are in there too

as will all disputes supreme court decideds.. and if they decided wrong then excutive power could theortically just not inforce heir rulling.. and if they enforce it people can kick the gov as example of france student protests happening know over a law change

[RobinsontoDuncan]

First it doesnt matter what Jefferson though because he never sat in on the constitutional convention, nor was he a federalist, and the first amendment clearly states that no religion will ever be established by congress--i.e. government can not introduce theology into a secular government.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

And yeah... I went to Law school

[Please_dont_ban_me]

I guess our defenition of "got his ass handed to him" vary.

[Chairman Kim]

Fine, let me ask plain and simple. Are you for a Theocracy? And if so, which religion will take the leading role?

My atheist theocracy in Pyongyang is working great.

[101A]

No. I'm for the people to have religion in their lives in places of the public square.

They should be able to use schools to meet.

There should be general prayer before school not refering ot any specific denomonation and even Athiests could agree with the messsage. (Using theier humanist docterine)

I believe historic religious symbols in our society should be preserved. (See Los Angeles County having to remove the cross from the county symbol yet the Pegan goddess on it can stay.) :shootme

I believe in a Christmas display in the town square with the manger scene. I also believe any other religion can have space for their celebrations.

I believe this country was founded on these values and I believe there should be no "National religion or church".

I believe athiests should not harassed due to their non belief.

I believe any religion that doesn't cause injury to others should be allowed to practice.



I'm not a religious extremist. I believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached. He should of been tried for purgery after leaving office since his crime didn't "endanger the Nation".


I'm just a moderate who won't ignore or try to change this countrys history which has made it the best country ever to inhabit the earth. I want that preserved for my childrens, children.


Crazy radical fascist hate-filled A-Hole!

[Oh, Gee!!]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is kinda ambiguous. That's why the Supremes get paid the big bucks.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

sure as hell isnt ambigious, it clearly says that there will be no national religion.

[DarkReign]

^ it was an attempt at humor

[Oh, Gee!!]

sure as hell isnt ambigious, it clearly says that there will be no national religion.

It's ambigious as to what governmental actions constitute establishment of religion. But you're a lawyer, so you know it all.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I never claimed to know it all. I do know that there is clearly a barrier between the church and the state firmly erected by the constiution and that barrier should not be molested.

I thought you for a seperation of church and state.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I never claimed to know it all. I do know that there is clearly a barrier between the church and the state firmly erected by the constiution and that barrier should not be molested.

I thought you for a seperation of church and state.


not saying I'm not a seperation of church and state kinda guy, but I do think some interpretation of the establishment clause is required given the limited language used by the framers.

[E20]

Wow, this forum is pretty fun to read.

[JoeChalupa]

I like the separation of Church and State.

[Darrin]

Man, I hate this debate. It's there; get over it. Why you need God and Coutry right next to each other is beyond. I don't expect the Federal Government to endorse a sports league or participate in one just because I find it entertaining.

My point is: Why is this issue so talked about? Who cares? I am a Catholic, I know my religion, I know when I break its laws, and I know when I break the laws of the United States Government. As long as the Gov't never says I have to break the laws of my religion to obey the laws of the Gov't, I'm okay.

Establishment means recognizing one type of religion. Read the Hebrew, Catholic, and Protestant Ten Commandments sometime. We can't agree on what God scribbled on the stone tablets and gave to Moses. By posting one and not the other, it's an endorsement of religion.

I'm just as dead-set against this case, if it's fairly represented. If the man said Yaweh, or Jesus, or started talking about Christianity, I can understand it. If he simply said god where it's creator, then he shouldn't be suspended.

[Darrin]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Sec24Row7]

Find were it says you can have a gun. Its not there either. The supreme court however has determined what is and is not constitutional. Try knowing something about the way our system of government works.


Eh?

Did I miss something?

[Sec24Row7]

Yeah so?... it says..." because a well regulated militia is needed for a free state"...

"The people have the right to own arms".

It gives a reason why...

Then states the right to bear arms.

Not hard to understand.

[Darrin]

Yeah so?... it says..." because a well regulated militia is needed for a free state"...

"The people have the right to own arms".

It gives a reason why...

Then states the right to bear arms.

Not hard to understand.

Yes, it does. But wouldn't you agree the amendment is more about securing a national defense - from external and/or internal forces - than securing an individual right to own a semi-automatic firearm?

When the rest of the amendments are issued, for instance the right to peacefully assemble, if context is given, it shapes our attitudes about the intentions of the framers, with exception to the 2nd amendment.

[FredFlash]

The person who can find "Separation of Church and State" in our Constitution.

It's in the fact that authority over religion was not enumerated among the powers delegated to the central government.

-James Madison


FoxNews last night reported a story of a teacher in (where else but) California who was suspended for using the Declaration of Independence because it mentioned "God" (actually, I think it says "Creator". The principal said he was "forcing his religious beliefs (paraphrased)" on the students....

They lie a lot.

[FredFlash]

Why don't you read this and understand Judge Black misinterpreted Jeffersons writings. You say interpret the law. It just takes one wrong ruling and future Judges use his ruling and the snowball starts.


What exact sentence in Thomas Jefferson's letter was misinterpreted, and where exactly in Black's opinion will one find that misinterpretation?

FVF

[FredFlash]

Thanks for the lecture. Have any idea how, where and when the debate came into the public realm?

Why don't you read this and understand Judge Black misinterpreted Jeffersons writings. You say interpret the law. It just takes one wrong ruling and future Judges use his ruling and the snowball starts.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

The Separation of Church and State

by David Barton

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The Everson Court of 1947 did not take the phrase from a Thomas Jefferson letter. It took in from the U. S. Supreme Court's 1878 opinion in Reynolds V. U. S.


REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

98 U.S. 145

OCTOBER, 1878, Term


The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed....

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government.

At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed.
In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital "that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."
In these two sentences is found the true distinetion between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.....

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "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 the 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." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

[Phenomanul]

The Everson Court of 1947 did not take the phrase from a Thomas Jefferson letter. It took in from the U. S. Supreme Court's 1878 opinion in Reynolds V. U. S.


REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

98 U.S. 145

OCTOBER, 1878, Term


The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed....

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government.

At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed.
In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital "that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty," it is declared "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."
In these two sentences is found the true distinetion between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.....

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "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 the 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." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

which took it from Jefferson's letter...

[FredFlash]

which took it from Jefferson's letter...

Correct. Why do you suppose David Barton did not want you to know that the Supreme Court in 1878 adopted James Madison's view of the First Amendment and attached Jefferson's phrase to it?


The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Thomas Jefferson, in 1800, was elected President as a Republican-Democrat. He had previously been a Federalist. http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfeldmeth/pres.html

In 1801, the Baptists in Connecticut were "suffering" from the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791. That is why they wrote the President as follows referring to the Certificate Law as "degrading acknowledgements":


Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of
the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/baptist.htm

John Leland described the Certificate Law of 1791 as follows:


At present, there are in the state about one hundred and sixty-eight Presbyterial, Congregational and Consociated preachers; thirty-five Baptist, twenty Episcopalians, ten separate Congregationals, and a few other denominations. The first are the standing order of Connecticut; to whom all others have to pay obeisance. Societies of the standing order are formed by law.... Their choice of ministers is by major vote; and what the society agree to give him annually, is levied upon all within the limits of the society-bounds; except they bring a certificate to the clerk of the society, that they attend worship elsewhere, and contribute to the satisfaction of the society where they attend. The money being levied on the people, is distrainable [enforceable] by law;....

It is not my intention to give a detail of all the tumults, oppression, fines and imprisonments, that have heretofore been occasioned by this law religion [italics added].... Let it suffice ...to say, that it is not possible,... to establish religion by human laws, without perverting the design of civil law and oppressing the people.

The certificate that a dissenter produces to the society clerk, must be signed by some officer of the dissenting church, and such church must be Christian; for heathens, deists, and Jews, are not indulged in the certificate law; all of them, as well as Turks, must therefore be taxed for the standing order, although they never go among them, or know where the meeting-house is.

This certificate law is founded on this principle, "that it is the duty of all persons to support the gospel and the worship of God." ...Is it the duty of a deist to support that which he believes to be a cheat and imposition? Is it the duty of a Jew to support the religion of Jesus Christ, when he really believes that he was an impostor? Must the Papists be forced to pay men for preaching down the supremacy of the pope,...? Must a Turk maintain a religion, opposed to the Alkoran ...? I now call for an instance where Jesus Christ, the author of his religion, or the apostles, who were divinely inspired, ever gave orders to, or intimated, that the civil powers on earth, ought to force people to observe the rules and doctrine of the gospel.

Mahomet called in the use of the law and sword, to convert people to his religion; but Jesus did not--does not.

...so there are many things that Jesus and the apostles taught, that men ought to obey, which yet the civil law has no concern in....
The charter of Charles II., is supposed to be the basis of government in Connecticut; and I request any gentleman to point out a single clause in that charter, which authorized the legislature to make any religious laws [italics added], establish any religion, or force people to build meeting-houses or pay preachers....

The certificate law supposes, first, that the legislature have power to establish a religion; this is false. Second, that they have authority to grant indulgence to non-conformists; this is also false, for a religious liberty is a right and not a favor. Third, that the legitimate power of government extends to force people to part with their money for religious purposes; this cannot be proved from the New Testament....

Although it is no abridgement of religious liberty for congregations to pay their preachers by legal force, in the manner prescribed above, yet it is anti Christian; such a church cannot be a church of Christ,...[pp.186-189]. Source of Information: The Writings of [Baptist] John Leland, ed. L.F. Greene (New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, reprint edition, 1969).
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/danbury.html


Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1


You butchered the hell out of that quotation, but there is still nothing in it about "clear limits on the centralization of government powers."


However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2


Where in that chopped up crap of a quotation is there anything about the First Amendment or the free exercise of religion?

Why did you censor out the part that read, "Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation...?"


In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

The letter the Baptists wrote did not include anything whatsoever about the “free exercise of religion.”


Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression.

At least you got that part right.


Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

You twisted the devil out of that quotation from the XYZ letter to make it appear that it was "the clause of the Constitution" that had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States, when it was actually "the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion" that had "given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity."

The complete quotation is presented below.


The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. Thomas Jefferson's "Eternal Hostility" Letter To Benjamin Rush dated September 23 1800

FVF

[Phenomanul]

^^^ Excellent analysis. :tu

[FredFlash]

^^^ Excellent analysis. :tu

I hope you do not rely upon David Barton for authoritative information regarding the First Amendment and the history of Church and State in America.

FVF

[Phenomanul]

I hope you do not rely upon David Barton for authoritative information regarding the First Amendment and the history of Church and State in America.

FVF


No, I've just come to grips with the fact that our country is too diverse and 'politically correct' for any one faction to control the government... that's a good thing.

I embrace my Christianity and let others embrace their own religion. Besides, no one will willingfully accept a spiritual doctrine if it is shoved down their throats...

The problems this topic creates, however, are far more complicated than can be solved by our law.

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination.

The claim that Thomas Jefferson held that separation of church and state was intended to do nothing more than prohibit the government from establishing a national religion is hogwash! President Jefferson rejected the notion that the government had "advisory authority" over religiojn and went to the extreme of refusing to issue religious recommendations via executive proclamation to the people. He explained his reasons in an 1808 letter to Samuel Miller.


To Rev. Samuel Miller Washington, Jan. 23, 1808 Sir, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with.

I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.

It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.

Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.

Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.



The "No Official National Religion" Interpretation Of The Establishment Clause Is Hogwash!


Counterfeit Christians and various other scoundrels wishing to unite church and state have been trying to foist the “No National Church” interpretation of the establishment clause upon the American people since it was formulated by the Devil and issued to Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) twenty-two years after the First Amendment was written. Laban Wheaton was a demonic Federalist who made no secret of his desire for the central government to assume civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. The first phase of his devilish scheme to trespass upon the jurisdiction of Jehova was to expand the two Congressional Chaplainships to impose a government established religion over the ten miles square of the District of Columbia.

Wheaton and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madison’s 1811 veto of a bill incorporating an Episcopal Church in Alexandria in the District of Columbia. President Madison believed the bill established rules and procedures, that could not be amended by the church, to govern the selection and removal of the minister of the church. Madison claimed it violated the establishment clause.

Wheaton argued that Madison's view of the establishment clause was wrong because Congress had already established two religions “by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains.” Wheaton deemed the meaning of the establishment clause to be of very great consequence. [Note 1}

Representative Wheaton complained, on the floor of the House during the debate regarding the veto, that the people of the District of Columbia were never going to have any religion because it had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District. Wheaton held the twisted view that religion established by the people or by God (instead of the government) was not really religion.

James Madison, according to his later writings, actually agreed with Wheaton that Congress had (improperly) established two religions in 1789 by creating the Congressional Chaplainships. Madison was decades ahead of most American's thinking with regard to religious liberty and perceived evil lurking under the plausible disguise of the Congressional Chaplains. Madison was a genuine Christian and knew that the serpent was very subtle and the wicked one grows his evil up from small beginnings.

Madison realized that setting up an official national religion would require four steps: 1) the selection of a group of Americans to be subjected to the establishment, 2) selection of a religion for them, 3) election of some ministers of that religion and 4) making a law to establish the people's duty to support the ministers. The establishment of the Chaplainships was accomplished by taking all four steps.

To James Madison and many others, the only difference in the two Congressional religions established in 1789 and an official establishment of a national religion, was the number of ministers that had to be supported by the taxpayers and the number of Americans covered by the establishment. Madison feared that every provision short of the strict Christian principle of Separation of Religion and Government would leave crevices through which evil men (like Roy Moore, David Barton and D. James Kennedy) would attempt to introduce their seeds of bigotry to grow into persecution which Madison believed was like a monster, that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

Fortunately James Madison was transformed into Superman when the rights of conscience were attacked. The same House of Representatives that voted 100 to 0 to pass the bill that Madison vetoed, voted 71 to 29 to sustain the Presidents veto. The “No National Church” Interpretation was rejected in favor of the “Total Separation of Religion and Government” interpretation of the President. James Madison was thus installed as the authority on the meaning of the religion clauses.

During the Early Days of the Grand and Glorious Republic it was always James Madison's interpretation of the establishment clause that eventually prevailed in every dispute over its meaning. These early Church State disputes included the following:

Presidential Religious Recommendations

James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper prevailed in 70 of the first 74 years of the young Republic. President Madison himself made the mistake of trying to accommodate Congressional requests for religious proclamations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his four proclamations employed a form and language meant to stifle any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting his recommendation expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion. [Note 2]

The consequence of Madison's wartime proclamations were malice and bitterness. In 1832 Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York recalled, in a speech on the House floor, that the that the wartime political religious observances under state authority were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.”

A lesson was learned from President Madison’s mistake of mixing religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and schemed to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Congressional Prayer

Contrary to the widespread myth, there were no daily opening prayers in the First U S. Congress. If you know of any evidence of morning prayers in the official records of the First Congress, please tell me where it is.

Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance

There was a dispute over whether Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance obligated the government to support religion in the Ohio Territory. The U. S. Congress believed that it did not and several attempts to enact legislation to "give legal effect" to the “support of the gospel” interpretation of Article III never even made it out of committee.

Sunday Mail Delivery

The Sunday Mail dispute raged from 1810 to the development of the telegraph and railroad train systems. The subject of the controversy was an 1810 post office law that required the transportation and opening of the mail on Sundays. There were numerous attempts by the “Christian Party” to convince Congress to repeal the 1810l law, but they all failed. Representative Colonel Johnson of Kentucky, chairman of the House Post Office Committee, issued a famous report in 1830 that adopted James Madison’s view that religion was exempt from the cognizance of the government. One of the many petitions from citizens supporting the 1810 Post Office law declared that the establishment clause was intended to, “Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence of any kind.”

Ten Commandment Displays in Federal Courts

The 1789 Judiciary Act did not include a requirement for the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts. I am not convinced that such a suggestion was actually introduced in Congress.

During the Early Years of the Republic (1789 to 1860) there were no disputes over “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the nations coins or government displays of the Ten Commandments. The Federal Government respected God’s authority over the conscience of men and refrained from using its legislative authority to issue religious advice to the people.


Notes

[Note 1]: The establishment of the Congressional Chaplains was supported by some Congressmen to merely undermine the Separation of Church and State or to convince gullible constituents that the Congressmen were Christians. The Congressional Chaplains were clearly not established because the Congressmen were pious Christians who wanted to attend religious services conducted by the Chaplains. By all accounts, only a very few Congressmen actually attended the Chaplain’s services.

[Note 2] In 1812, it had been twenty-three years since Congress had requested the President to issue a religious recommendation. This strongly suggests that the First Congress did not believe that government religious recommendations were a wholesome practice except in extraordinary rare circumstances. Congress did not request the proclamations issued by John Adams.

Sources of Information:

Read Laban Wheaton’s argument for the No National Religion interpretation at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=489

Read the official record of the 71 to 29 vote in 1811 in the House of Representatives in favor of James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=022/llac022.db&recNum=496

Read New York Representative Gulion Verplacnk’s 1832 speech on the subject of Presidential Religious Recommendations at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=013/llrd013.db&recNum=490

Read the 1801 petition citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, in the Northwest Territory praying for the support of the Gospel and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=010/llac010.db&recNum=435

Read about the 1802 announcement of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut that he would ask leave to bring in a bill the nest day to carry into effect the support for schools and religion in the Northwestern Territory. The official records show that Tracy did not attempt to introduce the bill. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=011/llac011.db&recNum=8

Read about the 1802 appointment of a House committee to inquire into the matter of support of religion within the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio. The committee never reported the question to the floor.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=004/llhj004.db&recNum=68&itemLink=D?hlaw:18:./temp/~ammem_x5qA::%230040069&linkText=1

Read about the Bill reported out of committee (but not passed) in 1828 that would have authorized the use of federal land in the State of Ohio for the support of religion.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=021/llhj021.db&recNum=198&itemLink=D?hlaw:32:./temp/~ammem_pzaN::%230210199&linkText=1