Yet you dismissed my sources, some from earlier periods, saying ALL judges for 170+ years were corrupt. Interesting how you change your tune when you find ONE judge you like.
Franklin then proposed that the Congress adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer.
Absolutely false. The Convention refused Franklin's motion after debate. REFUSED. It is a MYTH that they had the prayers. See earlyamerica.com for details.
The Continental Congress had a chaplain for prayers - a political move as he was an Anglican and they were courting Anglicans for support.
"... [T]he institutionalization of the congressional chaplaincy was motivated from the outset by partisan political concerns, and second, that the emergence of prayer at the inaugural ceremony was linked directly to the congressional chaplaincy and was characterized by concern about legislative privilege rather than spiritual necessity or religious establishment."(From Duche to Provoost: The Birth Of Inaugural Prayer", by Martin J. Medhurst Journal Of Church And State, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1982, pp 573-588)But you will never hear an atheist quote this segment from Federalist Paper No. 2:
Mainly because that has nothing to do with religion and government - it has to do with shared heritage of a mostly English frontier society.
That heritage was interesting given the over-reliance on the huge influence of the Christian church in the populace even though:
Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism, to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of the population were church members, and in 1800 there were fewer churches relative to population than at any other time before or since.(Religion & Constitutional Government in the United States, A Historical Overview with Sources. John E. Semonche, 1985)
The Founding Fathers were not exactly a stalwart group:
At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers. As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and the bright charms of rising civilization."( The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood, Alfred A. Knopf,1992)
And for the record, I am not an atheist despite your lying attacks.
At least he recognized a "Creator". You do know that at least three (3) times in his letters Jefferson claimed he was a Christian? He also believed in "future rewards and punishments", which means he is NOT a deist as you and other atheists claim.
He also edited a version of the Gospels according to his views wherein all mention of Jesus' divinity were removed to emphasize his philosophies - for which he has been lambasted by the religious right, when they choose to notice that embarrassing detail.
He also was of the enlightened movement that the Creator had walked away, leaving Man to his own devices - another source of the deist charges....unless it's convenient to use him as a source for the religious right.
In other words, Ellsworth and Justice Story have similary understandings.
As opposed to Franklin, Madison, Adams et al who were opposed to ANY religious test for ANY reason as it was NOT to be a religious government.
Your reliance on Story doesn't do your argument well since he refuted himself, and was known to be a "hater" of Jefferson, who you keep using. His qualifications have been under question as he never was a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as a political favor and issued decisions against Jeffersonian positions, especially separation, from his 'undying hatred.'(R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic, Gerald T. Dunne, Justice Joseph Story and the Rise of the Supreme Court)
Some quotes from his letters:
To Hon. Jeremiah Mason.,Salem, January 16th, 1822.:
Mr. Jefferson stands at the head of the enemies of the Judiciary,The truth is and cannot be disguised, even from vulgar observation, that the Judiciary in our country is essentially feeble
It will perpetually thwart the wishes and views' of. demagogues
[It sure sounds like an ACTIVIST judge....]
To Judge Fay, Washington, February 15th, 1830.:
Have you seen Mr. Jefferson's Works? If not, sit down at once and read his fourth volume. It is the most precious melange of all sorts of scandals you ever read. It will elevate your opinion of his talents, but lower him in point of principle and morals not a little, His attacks on Christianity are (i la mode de Voltaire; and singularly bold, and mischievous.
Story got into hot water over his fights with Jefferson and his side commentary, dicta, while not the force of ruling was public. Thus his own pulling back of his opinion in his clarification.
religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment).
There you make my point for me - left to the individual as the state supports were all eliminated from 1830-1850 and made irrefutably unconstitutional after 1866. Thus, left to the individual. Period.
Professor Daniel Dreisbach
Professor is a bit of a stretch for a lawyer for a Calvary association for training evangelists for Russia. Also, not exactly unbiased.
Interesting how you trust a lawyer who says the right things...even when he is wrong. His charges of poor documentation are nearly libelous. The sourcing is clear and obvious even for those blinded by bias, the sources also include all founders not just critics.
Dreisbach is laughable in the propaganda line.
And did you really mean to include the line:
It just so happens that these early Americans had a libertarian strain we today sorely lack. - Sandlin
Did you not criticize the libertarian stand of supporting separation, and holding religion in the realm of the people as a "libertarian" ideal. Your source makes the exact point that state supported religions is not necessary with the people responsible for religion.
Later, your source Baer includes: They considered their own Unitarian-deistic theology and morality entirely appropriate, indeed essential, to the task of public .
Wait - you said Jefferson wasn't a deist...which is it.... In a nutshell, Ophiucus, you should consider better (e.g., accurate) sources if you expect to get any significant mileage out of your myth.
Interesting - I was about to say the same. Garman, M. Div, in reviewing Dreisbach's work said that it was:
[A]lucid example of "history by omission" and "the intellectually dishonest practice of selectively recounting only those historical facts which could be read" to support a history revisionist's effort to misuse history by using only a part of the historical record and then finishing the sentence with words which do not exist in the document from which he quotes.The full truth is something that gets in the way of religious demagogues as they have a vested interest in a theocratic government, something that our Constitution went to great lengths to avoid.Further on - in toto -
The simple problem is that to Dreisbach "the meaning of the First Amendment is ambiguous" (p.22) --obviously. Now an example of how Dreisbach would reword the First Amendment: he says (p. 69) that to nonpreferentialists--such as he is--the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to "prohibit the establishment of a national (or federal) church and implicitly to restrict Congress from granting any religious sect or denomination a preferred legal status." Again, for the record, let it be clearly noted that the word following "establishment of" in the Establishment Clause is "religion"--not "national (or federal) church . . . religious sect or denomination," as Driesbach prefers. The solution, then, is to understand the "voice of the framers,"in the terms in which the Establishment Clause is written, as well as in historical context. Everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. The Establishment Clause restricted Congress in terms of an establishment of "religion"--just as it is written. For example, from history, in Virginia on October 25, 1779, James Henry presented the conservative demands in his bill "concerning religion." This bill . . . marks the great effort of the conservative party to re-establish . . . a general assessment and a regulation of religion. . . . The bill reads: . . . The Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth; and all Denominations of Christians demeaning themselves peaceable and faithfully, shall enjoy equal privileges, civil and Religious. . . . Whenever free male Persons not under twenty one Years of Age, professing the Christian Religion, shall agree to unite themselves in a Society for the purpose of Religious Worship, they shall be constituted a Church, and esteemed and regarded in Law as of the established Religion of this Commonwealth, . . . Every Society so formed . . . shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a Church of the Established Religion of this Commonwealth. The above example is quoted from pages 58-59 of a history first published by the Virginia State Library in 1910 as written by H. J. Eckenrode in the book Separation of Church and State in Virginia, (reprinted in 1971 by Da Capo Press). It is a clear illustration that "in the minds of the framers," like James Madison, there was the idea of an "Established Religion" which was defined in terms of all Christian churches, not just one, single, official, national denomination or church. The James Henry idea of establishing Christianity as the state religion was rejected in Virginia, and Dreisbach is wrong when he writes (p. 74) that "the final draft [of the Establishment Clause] fulfilled Madison's objective to proscribe . . . a federal church." James Madison never used the words "a federal church," and there is no mention of "Christianity" in the Constitution for the United States of America. That which is prohibited in the Establishment Clause is an establishment of "religion"--religion is what it says, religion is what it means, religion is the only word which is compatible with thereof in the free exercise clause, and it does not take a Rhodes scholar to understand it. President Madison understood it when in February 1811 he vetoed bills relating to an Episcopal and a Baptist church as violations of the Establishment Clause. (Essays by Garman, 1998)
A contemporary of Jefferson and Madison, John Leland , a Baptist minister, who cried out:
Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue.There is that pesky 1st Amendment wording, the "Congress shall make no law", again... That pesky Article 5 and 14th Amendment again....everything must be followed by the states.Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism.
It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll.
It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise.
Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful.
Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives.
It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . (July 4 Oration, July 5, 1802)
Absolute rubbish.
As is the position that to be a good Christian, you must be accept the government telling you and educating you how to be a good Christian.
One of many reasons why those of us who support religious freedom will always argue for religion to remain in the domain of the people and for the government to not invade this vital area for our freedom.
That is a valid complaint. Story died in 1845, so lets' hear from judges of his period, or earlier.
Absolutely false. The Convention refused Franklin's motion after debate. REFUSED. It is a MYTH that they had the prayers. See earlyamerica.com for details.
LOL. I will give you that one. I have been unable to confirm that Franklin's request for prayer led to subsequent prayers. But your original point was that there was no prayer during the convention. It is important we understand why.
From Farrand's Records, Vol 1, June 28th, 1787:
(Franklin) "I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service--
Mr. Sharman seconded the motion.
Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. Sherman & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission--that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within. would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,--& thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion."
Note that even Alexander Hamilton believed prayer would have been appropriate if adopted at the beginning of the Convention, and he was far from what secularists call "a Christian zealot". The main reason prayer was not adopted, according to Williamson, was the Convention had no funds.
Shortly after this, the Connecticut Compromise was presented, debated and adopted. By September 8, the rough draft of the Constitution of the United States of America was complete. Prayer has opened all sessions of both houses of Congress ever since.
Read Sect VI, Religion and the Federal Government, from "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" for non-revisionist history of the mix of early government and religion.
Another good read is Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments by David Barton.
I have noticed that you rely heavily on modern day interpretations of the founders, rather than the quotes of the founders themselves. Why is that?
Mainly because that has nothing to do with religion and government - it has to do with shared heritage of a mostly English frontier society.
You claim that a statement that we have a common religion and the same principles of government has nothing to do with religion and government? Ridiculous
He also edited a version of the Gospels according to his views wherein all mention of Jesus' divinity were removed to emphasize his philosophies - for which he has been lambasted by the religious right, when they choose to notice that embarrassing detail.
Heck, Ophiucus, I was an ignorant agnostic until I was 27 years old; and I was a Democrat until 1993. I am certain you could find many statements I have made in my life that contradict sound reason and judgement -- statements that you would agree with.
He also was of the enlightened movement that the Creator had walked away, leaving Man to his own devices - another source of the deist charges....unless it's convenient to use him as a source for the religious right.
Yet, he states plainly, in an 1822 letter, that he believes in future rewards and punishments. That is contrary to "deist" doctrine. Ophiucus, everyone knows that one method the left has been using to rewrite history is to claim some of the key founding fathers were deists. And you use it well. But you will never convince anyone with half-a-brain, and with a reasonable knowledge of real American History, that you are anything but a deceiver.
Your reliance on Story doesn't do your argument well since he refuted himself, and was known to be a "hater" of Jefferson, who you keep using.
Story never refuted himself (except in your dreams). All federalists hated Jefferson (not sure about Story), but that has nothing to do with anything. It is true that late in life (1822 and 1823) Jefferson wrote some pretty nasty prophecies about the Supreme Court, the nastiest of which have come true.
[Story's] qualifications have been under question as he never was a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as a political favor and issued decisions against Jeffersonian positions, especially separation, from his 'undying hatred.'(R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic, Gerald T. Dunne, Justice Joseph Story and the Rise of the Supreme Court)
Huh? Story's qualifications are only being questioned by revisionists who have no basis for secularism other than deceit. Story was appointed by Madison, a friend of Jefferson. As for qualifications, Story graduated 2nd in his class from Harvard, passed the bar 3 years later, and had a successful law practice, despite being from the party of Jefferson and Madison while living amongst New England federalists. He served in the Mass Legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 1811 by Madison. Story was credited with helping establish the Harvard Law School.
John Marshall, on the other hand, attended a few months of law lectures at William and Mary (his only formal education), was admitted to the bar in 1780, practice law for a couple of years, and was elected a delagate to the Virginia Assembly in 1782. Later he was a commissioner to France, a member of the U.S. House, and the Secretary of State under Johy Adams. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Adams near the end of his term as a political move.
According to your illogic, John Marshall was not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, much less as its Chief Justice, since his political record is similar to Joseph Story's (he never served as a judge and his appointment was a political move).
There you make my point for me - left to the individual as the state supports were all eliminated from 1830-1850 and made irrefutably unconstitutional after 1866. Thus, left to the individual. Period.
More revisionism. That power of the states was not usurped until about the 1960's, period!
Professor is a bit of a stretch for a lawyer for a Calvary association for training evangelists for Russia. Also, not exactly unbiased.
Considering your extremely biased and erroneous references, it is amazing you would would be daring enough to try the "Stop Thief" method at this time. But, in any case, everyone should read a bio of Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach. Note that Dr Dreisbach, a professor at the School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, D.C., has a B.A. from the University of South Carolina, a D.Ph. from Oxford University, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia. American University of Washington D.C. is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits schools such as the Univ of Maryland, Penn State Univ, Univ of Pennsylvania, Rutgers, University of Delaware, and many others.
No need to read you further, Ophiucus. You have no credibility.