Posted on 07/07/2009 9:04:44 PM PDT by TaraP
An Idaho community had secured an Air Force flyover for its local festival every year for more than 40 years, organizers say, but this year, the Air Force turned the request down over the festival's religious focus.
The God and Country Family Festival in Nampa, Idaho, applied to the Pentagon for the flyover but was denied in an e-mail, board member Patti Syme told KTBV. Syme said the e-mail from a defense official informed her the Pentagon prohibited support of special interest groups.
"I called him immediately and just said, you know hey we've been doing this for 42 years, we've had flyovers, what is the problem?" Syme told KTBV. "And he said, well we have looked up your Web site and everything on your Web site seemed to focus on Christianity, ministry booths. And he said, in fact, ma'am it sounds like it focuses on Christianity. And he said, in fact, it would be great to go to, in fact, if I personally, could come I would, but we can't endorse such an endeavor, so they couldn't do the flyover."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So you're not opposed "wasting taxpayer's money" for a flyover for at a fallen serviceman's funeral, but you are opposed to 'wasting' the same amount for a flyover to entertain thousands of taxpayers.
Got it.
I suppose if you were the Air Force Secretary your first decree would be to convert the Thunderbirds Aerial Demonstration Team to the Thunderbirds Funeral Flyover Team.
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."
-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion
"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813
"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814
"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816
"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity."
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831. One might expect a modern defender of the Evangelical to play with the meaning of "Christianity," making it refer only to a specific brand of orthodoxy, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15
"Some members of the organized church branded [Adams] as an atheist."
-- John McCollister, like his father John Adams, John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian, which, back then, meant the same thing as a "Deist," quoted from the Joint Baptist Committee's pamphlet, "Critique of David Barton's 'America's Godly Heritage'";
"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson, considering three different explanations for why sea shells would be found at higher elevations than one should reasonably expect an ocean to have existed, in Notes on the State of Virginia
"The legitimate powers of government 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."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
"... the Common Law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Christianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.
"For we know that the Common Law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the Common Law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the Common Law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the Common Law, because they were not yet Christians."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.
"... [A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1810
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price from Paris, January 8, 1789.
"Every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of God."
-- Thomas Jefferson, arguing that Chrisian exclusivism (via the idea of an exclusive revelation) degrades the credibility of the Christian religion, in a letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823 (capitalization of god per original)
"His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever a man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious, attributes of Calvin."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 322, quoted from Franklin Steiner,
"Of publishing a book on religion, my dear sir, I never had an idea. I should as soon think of writing for the reformation of Bedlam, as of the world of religious sects. Of these there must be, at least, ten thousand, every individual of every one of which believes all wrong but his own."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Rev Charles Clay, rector of Jefferson's parish church in Albemarle County, Va., January 29, 1815
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825
"The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible. The religion of Jesus is founded in the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged."
-- Thomas Jefferson, equating the Dogma of the Trinity with polytheism and calling it more unintelligible than paganism, in his letter to Rev Jared Sparks upon receipt of the latter's latest book (November 4, 1820)
"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822
"A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814, referring to the University of Virginia
I can’t see Muslims wanting it, for obvious reasons. Most Wiccans tend to be hippy-dippy peaceniks. I don’t know enough about Scientology to made too educated of a comment, but I can’t see that either...they’d want spaceships not fighter jets. :-)
Isn’t it amazing that the US existed for 171 years, basically endorsing Christianity, and then with one SCOTUS case, all that (including many prior SCOTUS rulings to the contrary) was negated.
Just goes to show how true John Jay’s statement was (as I posted)... WE chose ungodly leaders, what do we get? Eventually, we get an ungodly (”Not a Christian Nation”...).
Israel went through nearly the same situation (more than once). Established by God and in obedience to God. But then they wanted a “king” like “other nations”. A very small number of the kings of Israel (and after the split - Judah too) were godly - and the nation suffered judgment.
And as an historical side note... Notice when the Everson case went through - the real nail in the coffin for our Christian Nation - went down - right in the middle of the world-wide Communist revolutions (and what has every Communist regime done - outlaw Christianity, or limit such practice to state-sanctioned version).
1917 Communist Revolution in Russia (October Revolution)
1926-1949 Chinese Revolution/Civil War
1941-1945 - Communist Revolution in Yugoslavia
1945 “August Revolution in Vietnam
1954 Battle of Dien Bien Phu (First Indochina War in Vietnam) which brought Communist Party of Vietnam to power in North Vietnam.
1948 - “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - AKA - the Soviet-pushed Communist Revolution.
1959 - Communist Revolution in Cuba
Connection??? And the current accelerated attempts to shut down pastors in the pulpit (”Hate Crimes” legislation) and to finish removing all traces of Christianity from public places (though Islamic and other religions are A-OK to push their “culture” in public and in schools) just happens to be so much like those revolutions above - just stretched out and done little at a time (how do you eat an elephant?).
171 years of US History (when not hidden or lied about by liberals) cries loudly that the US at least WAS a Christian nation, set up on Christian principals. The founders intention (as Jefferson was trying to get across in his letter so often taken out of context to justify the “separation claus”) was that the congress was not to establish a STATE church (consider what many of the early settlers to the Americas had come from - Church of England, Catholic state church, Lutheran state-church, etc.). Their intent was NEVER to removed Christianity from government or the public square. Only to prevent a “Church of America” that ruled as was the case in Europe at the time.
Actually, the yellow text that says that being a “Unitarian was the same as Deist” is not correct. A deist is a fairly large step beyond Unitarian, though even today, the term Unitarian is not quite the same as the meaning of the term 200 years ago.
A Deist basically believes in “God”, but a God that is much more disconnected from His creation than Christianity believes. The simplest explanation - God created the world/universe/etc much like a watchmaker makes a watch. The creator then wound up the watch (put creation into motion) and then just stepped back and observes what happens with no direct influence by the creator’s hand.
Unitarians, at the time of reference, essentially was a rationalized version of Christianity. The first Unitarian church in America was formed in 1785 when members of King’s Chapel, Boston, voted to remove all mention of the Trinity from the service. The movement did not really begin to expand until 1819 when William Channing preached a sermon in Baltimore where in which he developed Unitarian doctrine. Their core doctrines were:
The “goodness” of man
Salvation by character culture (being a good person)
The unity of God
The humanity of Christ
The immanence of God in the human heart.
John Adams adopted Unitarianism late in his life, and some believe it was related to his old age, crankyness, and frustration at what “the church” represented, especially in other parts of the world - and to this, I can hardly argue with his frustration. In his later life, his distrust for clergy in general grew in likely proportion to his age and maybe even a bit of dementia. Add to that his marriage to a woman who had grown up with a liberal “Congregationalist” pastor father who moved to unitarian beliefs - and it is no wonder that he eventually espoused such beliefs.
But lets not forget that this same John Adams was also the one who gave us this bit:
“As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities....I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]”.
John Adams, “National Fast Day,”
What you said could be true, but still, these people have been pretty bold to say and write what they did, in the early 18th and 19th centuries!
I cannot imagine presidential candidates today being capable of speaking their minds like the way the Founding Fathers did. Obama had to profess his faith, or the lack thereof, for mere vote-bank politics.
Deism is pretty close to Atheism, in that the ‘God’ is disconnected from the present. Owing to the knowledge of science at the time, that was a pretty courageous belief, too. The Deists of those times, would be the Atheists of today.
you know....having studied English history extensively I can say that I am surprised by that assertion by TJ, he is 80% wrong on that....the Anglo Saxons at the time they invaded Christian Pax Romana Britannia had very little common law...they assimilated much Roman Britain custom promptly including Christianity quickly as they themselves soon found themselves fighting off Viking raids and incursions in soon to become Danelaw. Before England the Saxons were marauders forced from Holstein by successive other Teutonics moving west from the steppes.
Their first true self governance in permanent territorial form was in Britain precisely when they were Christianized.
And that is one of the issues with the claim that J Adams (and others) were Deists, when some were actually more Universalits- who do believe in God and his power and authority. Their big issues is they deny the full deity of Christ - instead believing that Christ derived his power from God, but was a man that was endowed with power, not that Jesus was actually God in the flesh. We also tend to be mislead by more recent developments in Unitarianism - such as Unitarian-Universalism which is far closer to Atheism or Deism than the form of Unitarianism that was starting in the early 18th Century. Unitarians in Adam's time were fore more "Christian" than Unitarian-Universalists.
The variety of Universalism that Adams adopted later in life, much because of his growing distrust of the ministry in general from the continued persecutions BY organized church, was really a slightly watered-down Christianity - they still followed the teachings and precepts of Christ, they just questioned His full or pure deity.
I beg to disagree. Any Atheist who admits there is a God is not an Atheist. Deism confesses a God, just not a God that actively interacts with His creation. This is a far cry from Atheism, even as expressed today.
At the time, Deism was treated with as much contempt as Atheism.
That said, a “Creator” that has no interaction with the present, is the same as Atheism, except that the available scientific knowledge at the time, especially on the theory of evolution, wasn’t advanced enough to provide a suitable explanation on the matter.
Like I said ealier, if the Deists had the body of knowledge that we have today, they would have been Atheists.
The various quotes by the eminent Founding Fathers, and their beliefs indicating contempt for religion, only serve to affirm this basic point.
Separation of church and state is completely revisionist.
Early America believed that religion was essential to prosperity and well-being. So several states, like Massachusetts, collected taxes that were to be distributed to the religious organization that the tax-payer wished to support.
All the states supported religious faiths in public displays and no one saw any conflict with that.
There are still several states with laws on the books prohibiting atheists from holding office, although the courts have ruled these unconstitutional.
The first amendment was meant to allow people to practice their faith without interference from the government.
But the contemptuous statements by some of the Founding Fathers actually come across as somewhat contradictory in many cases, as their statements in some settings reflect pretty solid Christian thought, while at other times - no so Christian.
One other thing we have to keep in mind - just as we must do with Bible interpretation - the context makes ALL the difference. I hinted about this in a prior post.
Organized religions (Christian-related denominations) of the time had been struggling with power in Europe. Even at the time of the American Revolution, Europe was practically on fire in some areas over denominational powers and the government. Our founders were quite aware of the danger of a state church - many had witnessed the evil that was portrayed in the name of the state church or were descendants of those who had fled to America to escape it.
But so many of the writings of a large portion of the founders, especially including the Federalist Papers, shows a deep respect and commitment to Christian values and principals in the establishment of this nation.
Even Thomas Jefferson, who is the most regularly deemed a "Deist" by modern scholars and historians, who's words have been used (out of context), respected and actually did not argue with the statements that claimed Christianity as the foundation of this nation. His letter to the Danbury Baptists where that quote comes from was a response to those Baptists who were concerned that one denomination would gain control of the new government (int there state of Connecticut)and thus be set up as the state religion.
Foot - instead of speaking for it, I will copy/paste the his letter, preceded by the Danbury Baptist's letter to him below.
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 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. 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
And Jefferson's Reply:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
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 authorised 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.] 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 & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
You are so off base it’s actually comical. I can only conclude that you truly don’t understand what it is to be an American. You really should read the Constitution and educate yourself on Supreme Court decisions related to separation of church and state. I am correct and you are not. You may wish it differently, but that’s your problem; not mine.
And - I don’t believe any founder of this nation was a Muslim. I also don’t believe I claimed that to be the case. But I know Thomas Jefferson — you’ve heard of him, haven’t you? — owned a Koran.
And there are good, Constitutional reasons why those laws have been held unconstitutional.
Just because something is done today doesn’t make it Constitutional.
Just because something was done 225 years ago doesn’t make it Constitutional, either.
Regarding Holy Trinity, you're noting dicta that has no legal basis. It's easy to find analysis putting that statement into appropriate context: such as:
Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy Trinity. The actual dispute or controversy the Court had to decide had nothing at all to do with religion. The parties in Holy Trinity did not question whether the Immigration Act's purpose was "for or against religion" generally or specifically. So when Brewer begins his religious history lesson with, "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people," he refers to no particular statute, no particular actor. He has moved outside the actual facts of this case and the statute at issue to address the vague application of general principles to law in general. His statements, therefore, create no rule of law, and provide no useful precedent for future legal disputes. As any basic Legal Research textbook will confirm, the legal researcher will not find precedent in such language, but must look for "the [legal] rules stated by courts [which] are tied to specific fact situations" (The Fundamentals of Legal Research, 1994, Jacobstein et al, page 6).From: http://www.philosofiles.com/big/atheistground/peters-churchstatereply.shtmlBrewer's comments about religion are not tied to any of the facts as presented in Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity Church did not allege in the facts of its case that the purpose of the Act was to discriminate against a particular religion nor that it was designed to prevent the members of their church from the free exercise of their religion. Since none of the facts suggested that the clergyman was being kept out of the country for the purpose of discriminating against religion or prohibiting religious exercise, the dictum by Brewer addresses no controversy and crafts no rule of law to be applied to other cases as precedent.
Holy Trinity's legacy includes a number of Supreme Court cases which cite the opinion as support for either statutory construction based on legislative intent or the use of immigration policy to exclude or include immigrants. Only on three occasions does the Holy Trinity christian nation dictum make an appearance in a Supreme Court case.
In the 1931 case of U.S. v. Macintosh, an ordained baptist minister was denied naturalization because he was unwilling to take an oath to bear arms in defense of the country unless he believed the war necessitating the defense to be morally justified. As in Holy Trinity, the legal rule established by this case had nothing to do with the christian nation quote. Instead, the applicant was denied citizenship based on a reading of the naturalization statute which required the oath.
However, in Macintosh dictum, Justice Sutherland writes, "We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God." Sutherland then states that as a nation we must assume that obedience to our laws is "not inconsistent with the will of God;" therefore, a foreign-born person refusing to follow the naturalization statute to the letter would be denied citizenship.
There are a couple interesting notes about Macintosh. First, in Holy Trinity, Brewer uses the phrase "we are a christian nation" to allow a foreign-born minister access to this country. In Macintosh, it is used to keep a foreign-born ordained minister out. Second, a different result would most likely have occurred had this case arisen after World War II when the court overturned the Macintosh line of cases (Girouard, 1946).
The other two cases which cite Holy Trinity's christian nation dictum are Marsh v. Chambers (1982), and Lynch v. Donnelly (1983). Brennan writes dissents in both cases and uses the Brewer verbiage to criticize the majority's use of history to support legislative prayer and a government sponsored creche. In the creche case, (Lynch), Brennan writes, "By insisting that such a distinctively sectarian message is merely an unobjectionable part of our 'religious heritage,' the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
The analysis one would expect from a philosophy/atheism web site.
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.