Have you ever read what Jefferson's letter was in response to? If not:
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
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 cons ution 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. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we 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 your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
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.
Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Because it helps explain why things are the way they are... like pretty much every scientific subject? Why teach physics? Why teach chemistry?
Was astronomy just a way for atheists to slay religion by going contra to the Earth = center of the universe theory?
Freedom of religion necessarily cons utes freedom FROM religion, as well.
What's the point of making me prove that "separation of church and state" is in writing somewhere? Unless you can prove that the founders intended the opposite, then there's no point to it.
You mean that Roman Catholic, Nicolaus Copernicus?
It then branches off to form a new sect, as many of the religious followers don't buy it either. That's why there are so many different sects.
Which religion does better?
Jefferson's words were unquestionably defining as separation of church and state, the 1st Amendment of the Cons ution. Jefferson had utmost authority to do so.
To question his intent on this is an exercise in futility.
Was Darwin an atheist? Methinks you didn't get my point. Not surprisingly.
I think the historical attack on Jefferson's letter is that he was neither a signer of the Cons ution nor an author of the Bill of Rights. It is noteworthy, however, that Jefferson and James Madison (who did write the Bill of Rights).
Functionally, I don't see how the two competing religion clauses of the First Amendment can operate without a Separation of Church and State. Necessarily, if the State becomes involved in religion by undertaking to legislate religious activity, it threatens the free exercise rights of someone (either the person who objects to religion altogether or the person who has a discordant view of the religious practice); contrarily, if Free Exercise is to mean anything, it has to at the very least mean that government won't be involved in what you do, religiously (with some very limited exceptions).
The fundamental justification for arguing that the government should ever be involved in religion lies in a belief that government should respect the will of the majority. But nothing about the Bill of Rights is majoritarian; everything about it is counter-majoritarian -- it necessarily protects the right of the political, social, and religious minorities from curtailment by the majority (popular speech needs no protection; those who are alleged to have violated no law need no protection through things like guarantees of due process).
Well said (and eloquently I might add)
771 comments on that story.
771 heads collectively beating against a wall.
"if other Protestants want to accommodate science, fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if their faith unravels."
If their faith can't be reconciled with the best efforts of man to understand such that they lose their faith, then those are ty beliefs, n'est-ce-pas?
side effect: faith peddlers and other false propehts would lose their power and money-sucking tactics so they have tremendous self-interest in keeping people benighted and enslaved in the Dark Ages.
Meh, no one is forcing people to believe the . The keeper of the lazy mind accepts whatever enters it, and won't wake mind security to investigate most of the time.
I'm growing increasingly worried about America's catching on of the Great Atheist Conspiracy in which I have wittingly taken apart of for decades and other great Americans for decades before me.
The Freemasons and Illuminati are the stuff of Hollywood fairy tale. The Great Atheist Agenda has been behind almost every major event in history. JFK? It wasn't some putz on a grassy knoll and it wasn't even male models... it was us. Do you think we could let a Catholic lead this country? Once we witnessed kneeling beginning to infiltrate great American sports like football, we knew something had to be done before the ball was replaced by a crucifix.
Every American president since has been an Atheist. Wonder why they always sound like idiotic hypocrites when talking about religion? Part of the time, its just our way of ing with you. The rest of the time, we just can't keep track of the bull you believe in.
But have no fear. We do not wish to eradicate religion from American life. After all, we have to control you animals somehow.
Science bless you.
Last edited by scott; 08-24-2011 at 12:33 AM.
Lol @ Scott
Atheists are fringe
Nice one Scott
You think he's kidding?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6170631AAICY1G
Scott "went there". Good job, sir.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
