Posted on 08/16/2004 3:15:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Ah, so the guide should be what a judge BELIEVES,instead of what the document actually SAYS (as long as we agree). I get it now...
You are being hypocritical because what you believe is also what judges say. Of course, if I am wrong, then you would believe that only the Congress is prohibited from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that states and local communities can pass any law they please regarding religion; which, or course, they did until the corrupt 1947 Hugo Black supreme court usurped that power from them.
Thomas Jefferson understood the original intent of the religious clause, as he explained in this 1808 letter:
"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."
We are a Christian Nation and we're nothing like the Taliban.
>>There may have been a social expectation of Christianity as normal, but we never had religious police in this country as in an Islamic nation
Of course we do. The religious police are called the Supreme Court which, beginning in 1947, usurped power from the states and the people and made it a crime to practice religion in traditional manners. Until that time the states and the people had control of religion.
I stated my position quite clearly at the start of the thread.
I don't believe the U.S. Constitution imposes a Christian religion, therefore the U.S. is not a Christian nation.
If you want to believe it is a Christian nation because it is based on a Protestant understanding of humanity, perhaps that is a valid position. I don't think that constitutes a Christian nation.
Is this unclear?
Long Cut, you really do need to read the constitution carefully before pretending to be an authority. The 1st Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It does not prohibit the establishment of religion; it only prohibits the Congress from respecting the establishment of religion.
Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, explained one of the restrictions this way: "A test in favor of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favor of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any public office and thus degrade them from the rank of free men."
Justice Joseph Story understood the 1st Amendment exactly the same way, as follows: "The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government . . ."
>>Since the document's wording is quite clear, it must be that they were either misinformed, ignorant of the implications of the First, or just hadn't read it.
Long Cut, please read the damn thing.
Such a declaration is in no way a violation of the First Amendment. Also, in no way was the Texas Republican Party advocating a Church of the USA or any other "state religion."
Yes. Next "difficult" question?
I am the only one of us two citing its words. As an example, you wrote:
"It does not prohibit the establishment of religion; it only prohibits the Congress from respecting the establishment of religion."
Emphasis yours. You left out an entire phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Emphasis mine. That means they cannot make a law establishing a religion as a state religion of the US. To deny that is to deny the plain meaning of the words.
Are you now ignoring entire parts of actual Amendments to support your case, in addition to ignoring the document itself?
You cited this:""A test in favor of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favor of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any public office and thus degrade them from the rank of free men."
Finally, somthing we agree on. If you read this closely, the man is speaking AGAINST a religious establishment, and for the reasons I bolded. It is what I have been saying...establishing any ONE religion as a government-blessed faith degrades those not of that belief system.
As for Justice Story, it is interesting that you have found just ONE justice who agrees with you, and cite him constantly, as if there were never any other learned jurists who disagreed with him. Pretty weak.
Oh, where to begin? First, I do NOT believe that, due to the 14th Amendment, which you can look up. It prohibits the states from violating the Constitution in their own constitutions and laws. It was ratified in 1868, far earlier than your 1947 bugaboo you so love to scapegoat. Prior to that time, any states wishing to join the union had to conform to the Constitution as a condition of entry. See Article IV, section 2. Because of communication, and of plain resistance, some states took their time (decades in some cases), but all eventually conformed.
It seems we have both read the Constitution. The difference is, I see what IS there, and you see what you WISH was there. As for Thomas Jefferson's quote, it quite nicely puts another nail in America as a "Christian Nation", as he quite clearly speaks AGAINST an establishment. His reference to the states was trumped by the 14th Amendment.
You are into the realm of spinning.
Superseded by the Constitution. Interesting historically, but irrelevant to law.
"Say what you will....but if the framers of the constitution had wanted a separation of Christian principals from government, it would have been enforced from July 4th 1776. Not 1962."
Say what you will, but if the framers of the Constitution had wanted a "Christian Nation", they would have written it into the document.
They specifically prohibited it.
Were they too communists?
Perhaps not. However, it gives pause to those of other religions who might otherwise support the Party, and incidentally gives fresh ammunition to our Leftist adversaries in their drive to paint us all as "religious extremists" and "theocrats". In any case, it is reckless demagoguery, and arrogant besides.
Ditto that. I am a Christian but these guys are insulting to me also. All for the 'sin' of not agreeing exactly with their opinion. It's very ugly.
Emphasis mine.
I was unaware that the nine Justices were, on their off-time, kicking the doors down at churches and synagogues and clapping their congregations in irons. I was likewise unaware that people of faith were being cast into prison for practicing their beliefs peacefully. WOW! the media is better at coverupt than I thought!
You learn something new every day.
Phil, you need to get a grip.
III. We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those Parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires;
The Cambridge Agreement - 1629
UPON due consideration of the state of the Plantation now in hand for New England, wherein we, whose names are hereunto subscribed, have engaged ourselves, and having weighed the greatness of the work in regard of the consequence, God's glory and the Church's good; as also in regard of the difficulties and discouragements which in all probabilities must be forecast upon the prosecution of this business; considering withal that this whole adventure grows upon the joint confidence we have in each other's fidelity and resolution herein, so as no man of us would have adventured it without assurance of the rest; now, for the better encouragement of ourselves and others that shall join with us in this action, and to the end that every man may without scruple dispose of his estate and affairs as may best fit his preparation for this voyage; it is fully and faithfully AGREED amongst us, and every one of us doth hereby freely and sincerely promise and bind himself, in the word of a Christian, and in the presence of God, who is the searcher of all hearts, that we will so really endeavour the prosecution of this work, as by God's assistance, we will be ready in our persons, and with such of our several families as are to go with us, and such provision as we are able conveniently to furnish ourselves withal, to embark for the said Plantation by the first of March next, at such port or ports of this land as shall be agreed upon by the Company, to the end to pass the Seas (under God's protection) to inhabit and continue in New England : Provided always, that before the last of September next, the whole Government, together with the patent for the said Plantation, be first, by an order of Court, legally transferred and established to remain with us and others which shall inhabit upon the said Plantation; and provided also, that if any shall be hindered by such just and inevitable let or other cause, to be allowed by three parts of four of these whose names are hereunto subscribed, then such persons, for such times and during such lets, to be discharged of this bond. And we do further promise, every one for himself, that shall fail to be ready through his own default by the day appointed, to pay for every day's default the sum of £3, to the use of the rest of the Company who shall be ready by the same day and time.
New England Confederation - 1643
Whereas we all came into these parts of America, with one and the same end and ayme, namely, to advance the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel, in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the Sea Coasts, and Rivers, then was at first intended, so that we cannot (according to our desire) with convenience communicate in one Government, and Jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of severall Nations, and strange languages, which hereafter may prove injurious to us, and our posterity: And forasmuch as the Natives have formerly committed sundry insolencies and outrages upon severall Plantations of the English, and have of late combined against us. And seeing by reason of the sad distractions in England, which they have heard of, and by which they know we are hinged both from that humble way of seeking advice, and reaping those comfortable fruits of protection which, at other times, we might well expect; we therefore doe conceive it our bounden duty, without delay, to enter into a present Consotiation amongst our selves, for mutuall help and strength in all our future concernments, that, as in Nation, and Religion, so, in other respects, we be, and continue, One, according to the tenour and true meaning of the ensuing Articles.
An Act for Freedom of Conscience - 1682
Almighty God, being only Lord of conscience, father of lights and spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith, and worship, who can only enlighten the mind and persuade and convince the understandings of people. In due reverence to his sovereignty over the souls of mankind;
Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no person now or at any time hereafter living in this province, who shall confess and acknowledge one almighty God to be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world, and who professes him or herself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly under the civil government, shall in any case be molested or prejudiced for his or her conscientious persuasion or practice. Nor shall he or she at any time be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever contrary to his or her mind, but shall freely and fully enjoy his, or her, christian liberty in that respect, without any interruption or reflection. And if any person shall abuse or deride any other for his or her different persuasion and practice in matters of religion, such person shall be looked upon as a disturber of the peace and be punished accordingly.
But to the end that looseness, irreligion, and atheism may not creep in under pretense of conscience in this province, be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that, according to the example of the primitive Christians and for the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord’s day, people shall abstain from their usual and common toil and labor that, whether masters, parents, children, or servants, they may the better dispose themselves to read the scriptures of truth at home or frequent such meetings of religious worship abroad as may best suit their respective persuasions.
Wrong.
He lost the debate the moment he had to resort to insult and invective to answer arguments.
Congress established no religion in the founding documents. They recognized a generic Creator, but no specific sect/creed or flavor was established as compulsory to being a citizen.
No religious test is now or ever was established as a pretext to being a citizen or becoming naturalized.
I therefore don't see the point in claiming the nation is Christian.
No one stops me from practising a traditionalist religion. Matter of fact last time I was in church, I used the 1928 Episcopal Prayer Book, which has been around since SHOCK: 1928.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.