|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
irisheyes 
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 03 2004,10:20 pm |
|
   |
This has been brought up in the Letter to the editor, Smoking ban thread. I want to respond to several things mentioned, but thought we should start a new topic for it first.
Quoted from Cpu_Slave:
| Quote | | That goes for the bad logic stating that since the founding fathers were christian, that they wanted a christian nation. |
That logic is supported.
On October 9th, 1789 George Washington stated, "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible."
Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father, but a very influential President), "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and realigion."
John Adams, "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."
Theirs a lot more, but you get the point, it was obvious what their intention was.
| Quote | | To say that lack of belief in god equates lack of morals is simply asinine. |
I don't disagree with you on this point, but the people who built this country believed this to be true, if that makes them asinine, so be it. The common interpretation today is that the Seperation of Church and State (although I think its a myth) means that Government will not recognize any realigion, or allow it to be viewed by people that could be offended by it on public property. But the freedom of religion was simply not allowing the Government to pick a state sponsored donomination, as was the case in England with the Anglican church and the persecution of other donominations as a result.
I'm just stating the facts for this to back up the original meaning of the Freedom of Religion, as I think the Constitution has been reinterpreted so many times in the past 50 years its losing its meaning. If anyone disagrees I'd be interested if their was any proof to contradict this.
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 04 2004,11:35 am |
|
 |
Althought the exact phrase "Seperation of Church and State" is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights there are many examples in their writings that show the intention of the framers was to seperate the two.
| Quote |
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
|
(James Madison wrote this to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia)
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 04 2004,11:38 am |
|
|
Just a couple of thoughts on the issue:
The Constitution doesn't prohibit recognition of a religion, it is contained in the very first sentence in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was not clear on a number of issues, so the Bill of Rights was added in 1791.| Quote | The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
|
I agree, Irisheyes, that while the framers of the Constitution were Christians, they obviously wanted no formal religion recognized by the government--like the Angelican Church. This basic tenet has been so actively corrupted by "activist" courts--"making law from the bench"--that it is unrecognizable. It is not only in the issue of religion that the activist courts make law and policy--the liberal Courts of the Roosevelt administration suddenly "found" that the Federal government had vast powers, to regulate firearms, dam rivers, set up untold numbers of Federal agencies (and let those agencies make their own laws, without being voted on by a deliberative or legislative body)--and in general, become all-intrusive into our everyday life. Look at the size of the federal government prior to 1932--a fraction of the size it was to become only 9 years later, on the eve of WW II.
In this respect, "activist" courts that suddenly "find" that the Constitution can be interpreted liberally are no different than Moslem Mullahs issuing their edicts! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 04 2004,11:59 am |
|
|
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Jefferson referenced and interpreted the bolded text above in response to a letter from a Baptist association that asked him why, as President, he wasn't declaring national days of fasting and thanksgiving.
| Quote | | Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] |
The bracketed words were going to be deleted by Jefferson to avoid pissing off allied politicians that would see the letter but the Library of Congress' copy of the letter retains the text and Jefferson's margin note that contains his motivations for "removing" the text.
Jefferson was one of the primary architects of the Constitution and much of our rhetoric against England. Hence, his words can be considered a clear picture of "what the framers intended." Far more than someone just reading the letter of the law and not its intent. The framers wanted religion and government to be separate: get over it.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
