Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religion in the Original 13 Colonies
procon.org ^

Posted on 08/18/2010 11:22:30 AM PDT by ml/nj

By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references.

Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively.

[Much more at the linked site]

(Excerpt) Read more at undergod.procon.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: church; religion; separation; state
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Petrosius
Wrong.

Why don't you read my comments next time before you post.

ML/NJ

21 posted on 08/18/2010 12:57:34 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Ok you got me. The United States was never a Christian nation. The people that came here and founded this nation weren’t Chrisitians. You’re very clever.


22 posted on 08/18/2010 1:05:42 PM PDT by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

LOL, but that was not what I said.


23 posted on 08/18/2010 1:07:29 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

If you read The Preamble to The Bill of Rights you will see that none of them were ever intended to be applied to the States.(All States have their own Constitution, most all of with their own equivalent of the bill of rights).

The idea of incorporation was invented by the Federal Courts in the 1925 edict Gitlow v. New York. An act which violated all 3 tenants of Common law.

1: The Text of the Federal Constitution.( in nether the Federal Constitution nor the 14th amendment does it say the BOR apply to the States, that is why most every State has their own BOR)

2: The common understanding/past practice of the Constitution.(Nobody ever incorporated the bill of rights upon the states before.)

3: Past judicial precedent.(2 past rulings saying the BOR was not incorporated)

But the 1925 Federal court much like many courts after 1913 dident care about the law as they have presumed themselfs to be the final athoirty on what the law is. So in 1925 as they would so many times they dictated brand new constitutional law. No 2/3rd of congress or the states preposing, no 3/4th of the states Consenting with ratification.

In 1925 for the first time in history the “progressive” court applied the 1st amendment the States, calming the 14th amendment as their backing.(A clam already specifically refuteated by a prior Supreme Court, as well as the ratifiers of the same.(The ones not under federal guns))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)


24 posted on 08/18/2010 1:18:20 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bump


25 posted on 08/18/2010 1:24:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

My ancestor, Edward de Bompasse (Englishman) came here from Leydon on the Fortune in 1621 because he was being persecuted for his religion. The same with Jacques Remy who was a french Huguenot who came in 1654.


26 posted on 08/18/2010 1:34:42 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
My posting was directed solely at the words I quoted and the words “show me” were rhetorical. The posting was not directed at you personally.
27 posted on 08/18/2010 1:40:26 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
The understanding by most, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights is counter to today.

James Madison's first draft of the first amendment included the words “National Church.” Clearly, that was the intent, no National Church.

150 years later, the intent was was completely negated by Hugo Black and the ACLU’s Leo Pfeffer in Everson.

28 posted on 08/18/2010 1:47:34 PM PDT by Machfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
I suggest you be more careful about how you use the language.

ML/NJ

29 posted on 08/18/2010 1:50:53 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; James C. Bennett
The site that the info comes from is this one.

Treaty with Tripoli 1796 Avalon Project Yale Edu

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

30 posted on 08/18/2010 1:52:03 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Thanks.

If the Arabic version didn’t have the 11th Article mentioned, then the argument posed by Chuck Norris completely fails. That said, why would it be included in the US English version?


31 posted on 08/18/2010 2:04:30 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

It appears that Barlow added it for his own reasons. He had an axe to grind. I had some articles on Barlow but they’ve been removed from the net. He’d be an Obama fan today.


32 posted on 08/18/2010 2:10:01 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Placemark for reading.


33 posted on 08/18/2010 7:22:53 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I understand what you are saying concerning incorporation and the bill of rights. But, my understanding of the constitution is that the rights for individuals are merely codifications of an already existing granted right. The right comes from God and the government merely recognizes the right. That being the case, if the local (such as a state) government does not recognize our God given rights, I guess we could certainly move to another state. But I think it is inherent that the Federal government is there to protect our God given right. That is why I believe that the Federal government stepping in to ensure blacks be allowed to vote in the 1960’s with the voting rights act was lawful and just.


34 posted on 08/18/2010 7:32:30 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stefanbatory; Pharmboy

Thanks stefanbatory.


35 posted on 08/18/2010 9:12:28 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Government in general is there to protect your God given rights, Not specifically the Federal government. Although to get that protection you have ceded to both your state Government and the Federal government a small number of other rights in their respective constitution’s.

Just because you have not ceded the right to free speech to the Federal Government does not mean you cannot cede that right to the State Government.
To say otherwise is madness given the extraordinary finite scope of the Federal Government.


36 posted on 08/19/2010 12:06:03 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

It slipped out of my original post but Voting rights is in the 15th not 14th amendment. Voting rights of course has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. But even before the 15th amendment it was a State issue, quite logically as there are NO Federal elections in the United States in which the people part take. Only State and local elections.


37 posted on 08/19/2010 12:19:22 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
"quite logically as there are NO Federal elections in the United States in which the people part take. Only State and local elections."

I'm not sure how you mean that. We have many elections in which we elect federal, state and local officials. Whether you want to call that a Federal election or not is up to you. But we are electing federal officials in almost all elections. That being the case, the Federal government certainly has a say in what manner the Federal officials are elected.
38 posted on 08/19/2010 4:16:36 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

This belongs under bloggers. Or religion.


39 posted on 08/19/2010 4:24:04 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
This belongs under bloggers. Or religion.

Take it up with the Admin, Pal. I quoted something Keith Ellison said the day before as lame support for the Ground-Zero Mosque. His argument is being echoed by ignorant people all over the country. I sought to take down that argument in the way I thought best. If you don't think is in the spirit of "News/Activism" you're not paying attention.

ML/NJ

40 posted on 08/19/2010 5:48:29 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson