'Original meaning' and the constitution

It is pretty obvious you have an axe to grind with Christianity...

Just because you want to turn any debate that even mentions God into a debate on God doesn't mean the we are debating God's existance, or that debate is even relevant to this discussion.

We are discussing natural rights; more specifically what the Framers understood that to mean. For that, the existance of God is assumed.

What you are talking about is positivism, where all rights eminate from the state. That is the idea that communist countries function under.

Nice attempt at a red herring...:rolleyes:


sorry. you're wrong. pretty lame attempt at trying to discredit me by lumping me in with communists. it has nothing to do with the state, but with natural rights as given to a free thinker as being a part of being human and intelligent and living in free society. why do they HAVE to be conveyed by god? because that is how the religious view it.

they can just as easily be bestowed among the masses as an idea of living within a true free state. that was the part of the arguement i was pointing out. if you base the ideals on something that might not pan out in the end, then what have you got? something given to you by nothing.
 
God help us if people like you ever take power in this country.

well, something that's nothing isn't going to help at all. and if your kind get in, welcome back to the middle ages.
 
well, something that's nothing isn't going to help at all. and if your kind get in, welcome back to the middle ages.
Tu quoque much? My kind have been in since the beginning, and, um, we don't live in the middle ages. Sorry, but you FAIL.

Dude, face it, you're a one trick pony, no different from our resident bot, Fredflash/Mick Jagger. Go start your own thread instead of trolling in this one. We know why you won't do that, though, because nobody wants to talk to you about your insecurities regarding the existence or nonexistence of God - that's why you have to insert yourself off topic into other threads.
 
Hello Hrmwrm…

I don’t think that shag was trying to lump you into the communism bucket…

Just trying to point out that we aren’t debating the existence of God, but rather the framers viewpoint on natural rights and how natural rights could be applied to the constitution, which can help distinguish between original meaning and original intent.

I find it much easier to debate the constitution, and in particular the 1st amendment by assuming the existence of God. The framers believed, so let’s keep the supposition that God ‘is’. The debate gets messy and convoluted if the existence of God has to be addressed at the same time. God existed to the framers, the framers crafted the constitution with that in mind – that is all we need to know.

And, I think the rest of the people in this political forum are just sitting back, watching Shag and I debate to see what will happen… sort of a spectator sport at this point.:F

Maybe if you want to argue natural rights as viewed by free thinkers it might make for an interesting thread.
 
But, if one religion (in this case Christianity) is promoted by the government, exclusively, isn't that what Jefferson warned us about? A 'maneuver' to ascend one religion or sect over the other? If Christianity is the government 'promoted' or 'preferred' religion and is only religion that is put forth by the government, then what will happen to the other religions that don't have the backing of the United States Government?

You are talking about this as if it is a hypothetical. But what you are talking about was the case from the beginning of this country through about the 1940's. That was when the Supreme Court started imposing a misintepreted "wall of separation" and "incorporating" the two religious clauses.

History has already shown your concern to be unfounded. Religion (specifically Christianity) was promoted, andit didn't infringe on other's religious rights.

You have to understand that the Framers were trying to prevent something like the Church of England, where they had come from and where no other religion was allowed. To avoid that threat to the freedom of religion, they put in the Establishment Clause. It had nothing to do with forbiding the promoting of a religion at the national level. It just made sure that it never went beyond simply promoting.

My right to freely practice my religion without interference from the government is hampered by the fact that the government is promoting an entirely different form of religion.

How? You are still allowed to practice your religion as you see fit. There is no government action that hinders that. Where is the interference by the government?

Being expected to tolerate a religion that may not be yours in no way infringes on your freedom of religion. Remember, it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

How can the government even chose a religion (and especially in the case of Christianity - sect) to promote - without infringing on natural rights? Does it ask for a majority, a vote?

It doesn't really need a vote. Today, Christianity is as much a part of our national tradition as anything else. Presidents and other government officials are sworn in on a bible, Congress opens with a prayer, the Supreme Court begins each session with some saying like, "God save this honorable court", etc., etc.

You still need to show how simply promoting a religion can somehow infringe on your freedom of religion. FYI; you need more then an broad assertion to do that.

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546

Again, Jefferson had an abnormally broad view of the Establishment clause for his time. Most people of the time had a much more narrow view, in line with what I have conveyed.

Isn't the government, by promoting one religion over the many religions narrowing the playing field? Isn't the government then infringing on our natural rights?

How is it narrowing the playing field? It is not disallowing any religion. In order to show that religious freedom is being infringed upon, you have to show that the government is somehow disallowing (or forbidding) a religion, or religious practice. You would then need to tie that to the promotion of another religion to show that it is infringing on those rights through the Establishment Clause.

Again, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. The federal government having basic expectation of tolerance for another religion on the part of the people does not in any way infringe upon one's freedom of religion.
 
I find it much easier to debate the constitution, and in particular the 1st amendment by assuming the existence of God. The framers believed, so let’s keep the supposition that God ‘is’. The debate gets messy and convoluted if the existence of God has to be addressed at the same time. God existed to the framers, the framers crafted the constitution with that in mind – that is all we need to know.
+1

Excellent point. The framers didn't even go out of their way to argue the existence of God...because they all assumed it to be true, and assumed everyone else believed in Him as well. It was a non-issue.
 
However, Christianity WASN’T promoted. There was no talk of putting the 10 Commandments in government buildings, there was no discussion on whether the Bible or it’s views should be taught in public schools, there wasn’t any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn’t until the 1st Amendment started to become diluted in the first part of the 20th century that the more aggressive stance took place within the Supreme Court.

Ask your grandparents if they ever saw any or heard any religious doctrine in government institutions before the 40s. Or even if they heard much discussion that this should happen.

The framers never thought of putting religious doctrine on the wall of a government building – they never did it. You can’t, it conveys that religious doctrine is equal to or supercedes civil law.

If the government is allowed to promote one religion over another, it will have more resources available to it – therefore it will, in time be available to more people, and as the availability and exposure to one religion increases, the chance that people will seek out different viewpoints and different ideals diminishes. If, when you are looking for a path to follow or ‘investigate’ as you look for your personal enlightenment, and one path is promoted as “government approved” (maybe we need a seal of approval here) don’t you think that with the off-hand official endorsement the government’s promoted religion will become the religion of choice? The government is in effect stacking the deck in favor (or narrowing the field) of it’s own ‘promoted’ doctrine. It doesn’t have to declare an “official” religion, when it can foster its own doctrine under the guise of “promoting”.

You use the same argument when you so vehemently on this site decry the liberal press. You state, correctly, that MSM is liberally biased, and that this colors citizens’ views on important subjects. You bemoan the fact that if the press is espousing a viewpoint that it is promoting a doctrine. The doctrine of liberalism. You further say when the press promotes the doctrine of liberalism that the doctrine of conservatism is drowned out and not given a fair chance. In effect, shepherding innocent and unwitting Americans to accept the doctrine of liberalism.

You earlier elevated the press to the 4th pillar of government – that it should be without bias. What is different about the other three pillars of government? When you promote an ideal you are showing a bias. The government by promoting a sect of Christianity will be showing bias. By supporting a biased viewpoint, they are infringing on my rights.

As far as choosing Christianity – I still don’t see how you choose ‘what’ Christianity – do you take a count of people who belong to a religious affiliation (Catholics may lead there)? Do you lump Protestants together, making the Orthodox religions angry because that is showing bias to Protestants? Do you go back to the founding fathers – compare their religious affiliations (55% were Episcopalian/Anglican) and choose that one? Just those few examples of Christian sects are all quite different, including how they present and perceive the 10 Commandments.

I am not arguing that Christianity is the ‘leader’ in the religious race. Nor am I arguing that Christianity is part of our national tradition (we celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, we are allowed to swear on the Bible) what I am arguing that Christianity doesn’t need to be put on an even higher pedestal by the federal government then it already is.
 
Drat - in a moment of heated debate, I forgot about Scopes... drat.....

Double Drat...

Yes, creationism was taught in schools, I could say until we knew better, but I won't go there...

Yes, I will - it was an accepted theory until Darwin. Therefore, taught in schools. Sort of like the earth is flat was taught until Galileo.

Shazbut...

Try not to call me out on this - OK - the rest of the argument is valid - and so is this - but, we could end up discussing Scopes instead of the first amendment.

I'll take on creationism in another thread if you want me to... I promise:)
 
However, Christianity WASN’T promoted. There was no talk of putting the 10 Commandments in government buildings, there was no discussion on whether the Bible or it’s views should be taught in public schools, there wasn’t any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn’t until the 1st Amendment started to become diluted in the first part of the 20th century that the more aggressive stance took place within the Supreme Court.

So...because there was no "discussion", that means it wasn't promoted? Is that what you are trying to argue? I would hope I am somehow misunderstanding your argument and thus micharacterizing it, because that would be a HUGE non sequiter.

Never mind all the evidence of Christianity being promoted; because it wasn't discussed means it wasn't?

You gotta admit, that sounds pretty absurd.:rolleyes:


Ask your grandparents if they ever saw any or heard any religious doctrine in government institutions before the 40s. Or even if they heard much discussion that this should happen.

relevance?

... it conveys that religious doctrine is equal to or supercedes civil law.

First...how this goes against the Establishment Clause?

Second...that action would also convey the role that Christianity played in our national tradition.

If the government is allowed to promote one religion over another, it will have more resources available to it – therefore it will, in time be available to more people, and as the availability and exposure to one religion increases, the chance that people will seek out different viewpoints and different ideals diminishes. If, when you are looking for a path to follow or ‘investigate’ as you look for your personal enlightenment, and one path is promoted as “government approved” (maybe we need a seal of approval here) don’t you think that with the off-hand official endorsement the government’s promoted religion will become the religion of choice? The government is in effect stacking the deck in favor (or narrowing the field) of it’s own ‘promoted’ doctrine.

Again, this violates the Establishment Clause?

the Establishment Clause was not intended to make all religion's equal, or recognize them equally. That is a huge stretch from what it means. It was only ment to prevent the Federal legislature from legislating at all concerning church establishments. Period.

Drawing anything more from it is an attempt to "reinterpret" it to one's own agenda.

It doesn’t have to declare an “official” religion, when it can foster its own doctrine under the guise of “promoting”.

Again, that is a big stretch. There is no supression of other religion's going on in any of these actions.

You use the same argument when you so vehemently on this site decry the liberal press. You state, correctly, that MSM is liberally biased, and that this colors citizens’ views on important subjects. You bemoan the fact that if the press is espousing a viewpoint that it is promoting a doctrine. The doctrine of liberalism. You further say when the press promotes the doctrine of liberalism that the doctrine of conservatism is drowned out and not given a fair chance. In effect, shepherding innocent and unwitting Americans to accept the doctrine of liberalism.

There are a few key differences in the analogy you are making that make it a false analogy.

First:
There is nothing like the Establishment Clause that in any way binds any part of the press...

Second:
To run with your analogy, the Fairness Doctrine was effectively like the government establishing an official church and religion. When the Fairness Doctrine was removed, we saw the rise of the new media. There is no action on the part of the government with regards to religion that is on par with the effect the Fairness Doctrine had in effectively making liberalism the establishment in the media.

In fact, it actually further proves my point. With no fairness doctrine, the liberal MSM is losing their place as the "establishment" in the media.

You earlier elevated the press to the 4th pillar of government – that it should be without bias. What is different about the other three pillars of government? When you promote an ideal you are showing a bias. The government by promoting a sect of Christianity will be showing bias. By supporting a biased viewpoint, they are infringing on my rights.

This is a red herring. My whole argument against liberal bias in the media was specific to that context. Trying to apply that argument here it taking it out of context. There is no issue of bias relevant to this discussion.

the Establishment Clause is in no way ment to try and not so a preference, or to make every religion equal. In fact when you try that, you inherently trample on the Free Exercise Clause as you are suppressing the religious freedom of the more dominant religious.

I am not arguing that Christianity is the ‘leader’ in the religious race. Nor am I arguing that Christianity is part of our national tradition (we celebrate Christmas as a national holiday, we are allowed to swear on the Bible) what I am arguing that Christianity doesn’t need to be put on an even higher pedestal by the federal government then it already is.

I never said that Christianity needed to be put on a higher pedestal. I said that it historically has been, and that doing so, in no way goes against the Establishment Clause unless it goes so far as to make Christianity the established religion (which it doesn't).

Where do you get some sort of need to promote equality among the various religions out of the Establishment Clause? That is not in there.

The government should never be in the business of promoting equality, in aspect of society.
 
Yes, it wasn’t promoted -

Provide evidence of the framers promoting Christianity. Obviously the founding fathers went out of their way NOT to promote it, evidence by the fact that no Christian ‘document’ is promoted within the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Documents that could have easily held reference to at the very least the 10 Commandments. The Constitution goes as far as to never mention the word Christianity.

Relevance of previous generations (your grandparent’s) not being subject to religious doctrine within the governing sector.

Up until the 1930s (approximately) and the rise of various radical religious factions in the United States, the separation of religion and state was a ‘given’. Churches were at the forefront of keeping the two on different ‘sides of the wall’ because what they viewed as the coercive and corrosive influence of government. Ask the Quakers, the Baptists, recognized Protestants, Catholics, or any organized religion that has been around for over 100 years how they feel about the state promoting religion…

I can give you what each of them has to say about it, their statement to the ideal of separation of church and state – if you need me too – but, I think you know what they say.

How does the statement that religious doctrine cannot be equal to or supercede civil law go against establishing religion (I think this is what you meant...). If religious doctrine is equal to or above civil law, then, it places Christianity (in this case) on an equal plane with the government - while other religions, although perhaps not below the plane, on a different plane - the government has already had problems with 'separate, but equal' in the past.

The government cannot promote one religion to the exclusivity of all other religions. I am not ‘reinterpreting’ it, I am applying natural rights, just as you do to the second clause. The ideal of natural rights pertains to both ‘segments’ of the religion section of the first amendment. And yes, there is suppression of other religions by the lack of admission. By having the most powerful government on the face of the planet state that we should include Christian prayer in schools, my natural rights of being able to find my own path to God have been violated. I have yet (this is in supposition) to accept prayer as part of my path to God, however the state is ‘saying’ that this is its promoted path, therefore I must ‘hear’ prayer, whether I accept it or not. No longer are my natural rights of discovering ‘God’ being upheld.

Using the analogy of the press.

I was using the comparison of bias in the press to bias in the government if allowed to promote one religion. The government cannot hold bias within the subject of religion. And as far as the failed Fairness Doctrine - it was set up to make sure that controversial issues were heard, and then it also stated that those with contrasting viewpoints be allowed ‘airtime’. It was more like the constitution, that all religions (or opposing viewpoints) should have an opportunity to be heard, without one religion (or viewpoint) held in a place of preferential treatment. Similar to the ideal that if the 10 Commandments are posted in a government building then there should also be the opportunity for the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Wiccan Rede, or the Affirmations of Humanism, to be place as well, with equal prominence.

The Establishment Clause has everything to do with not allowing a preference of religion. By circumventing this clause and allowing the government to ‘back door’ promote a religion, there is suppression of religion among ‘lesser’ religions. The mere supposition that a religion needs to be promoted by government goes against ‘freedom of religion’. Why does Christianity need government support? If it is the religion of the people, then, it can take care of itself, without government interference. It is only when suppression of religion occurs that the government should involve itself in religion.

When a religion, which is already on an ‘agreed’ pedestal, in this case Christianity, is further supported and propped up by government, the government is in effect suppressing other religions, by not allowing them onto the same pedestal.

The government should never be in the business of promoting equality, in aspect of society.
The government should never promote social equality? Really? I have always that is what the constitution/bill of rights was - a statement of social equality. Enlighten me oh Shag…:)
 
Provide evidence of the framers promoting Christianity.

From David Limbaugh:

The Continental Congress frequently engaged in religious observance, from days of fasting and prayer to appeals for divine assistance. One of the first acts in 1774 was to appoint a chaplain. In 1780, because English Bibles were in short supply, Congress passed a resolution encouraging states to print an American Bible....Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance to promote religion and morality, and it funded a project to provide Indians with a Christian education.

Congress continued to promote Christian religious interests after the Constitution was ratified through appointment of official chaplains, recitation of prayers, recognition of days of thanksgiving and continued appropriations for the Christian education of Indians.

A few things Justice Scalia points out in his decent in Lee v. Weisman (1992):

  • The Declaration of Independence, the document marking our birth as a separate people, "appeal[ed] to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions" and avowed "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."
  • After Washington swore his oath of office on a Bible, he deliberately made a prayer a part of his first official act as President...Such supplications have become a characteristic feature of inaugural addresses ever since. Even Jefferson and Madison made a prayer part of their first official acts as president.
  • Ever since the First Congress, congressional sessions have opened with a chaplain's prayer.
  • [The Supreme] Court's own sessions have opened with the invocation "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" since the days of Cheif Justice Marshall.

It is pretty well indusputable that the framers and their generation had no problems with the federal government promoting Christianity, and that tradition has been enshrined in our nation to this day.

Up until the 1930s (approximately) and the rise of various radical religious factions in the United States, the separation of religion and state was a ‘given’.

Between the time of the Constitution Convention to when the Bill of Rights was adopted, 6 states had officially supported churches. Specifically; Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The "wall of separation" didn't become law until the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940. Until then the understanding of the Establishment Clause was much more in line with what I have conveyed.

Churches were at the forefront of keeping the two on different ‘sides of the wall’ because what they viewed as the coercive and corrosive influence of government. Ask the Quakers, the Baptists, recognized Protestants, Catholics, or any organized religion that has been around for over 100 years how they feel about the state promoting religion…

Of course the churches liked that idea because it insured religious autonomy. That doesn't mean that the Establishment Clause was written with that in mind.

The government cannot promote one religion to the exclusivity of all other religions.

There is no constitutionally textual basis for that statement. You seem to be reinterpreting the Establishment Clause more broadly then it was written or clearly intended.

I am applying natural rights, just as you do to the second clause. The ideal of natural rights pertains to both ‘segments’ of the religion section of the first amendment.

Specifically what right? The Establishment Clause is simply to further insure the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Cause embodies the only "right" in either of the two clauses.

There is no other "natural right" that you are applying or appealing to. Not every clause in the constitution encompasses a separate right.

By having the most powerful government on the face of the planet state that we should include Christian prayer in schools, my natural rights of being able to find my own path to God have been violated. I have yet (this is in supposition) to accept prayer as part of my path to God, however the state is ‘saying’ that this is its promoted path, therefore I must ‘hear’ prayer, whether I accept it or not. No longer are my natural rights of discovering ‘God’ being upheld.

Again, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. There is no "violation of rights" in expecting someone to tolerate a different religious view. There is no suppression of religious freedom. Assertions alone don't disprove that.

You really should read Scalia's dissent in the Lee v. Wiesman.

The government cannot hold bias within the subject of religion.

Says who?

The constitution only says that the federal legislature cannot make laws respecting the establishment of a religion. That is all.

Again, you seem to be re-interpreting the Establishment Clause as some tool for equality, which it isn't.

And as far as the failed Fairness Doctrine - it was set up to make sure that controversial issues were heard, and then it also stated that those with contrasting viewpoints be allowed ‘airtime’.

I am not concerned with what it was "set up" to do. I am concerned with what it did do.

It was more like the constitution, that all religions (or opposing viewpoints) should have an opportunity to be heard, without one religion (or viewpoint) held in a place of preferential treatment.

Again, where does the constitution say that? Please provide the text, because the Establishment Clause is clear in what it does and doesn't say, and it doesn't say what you are claiming here.

...allowing the government to ‘back door’ promote a religion, there is suppression of religion among ‘lesser’ religions.

That is a HUGE non sequiter.

You are jumping from point 'A' to point 'Q' here. The government promoting a religion does not equal suppression of non-promoted religions.

In fact, it is a faulty generalization.

The mere supposition that a religion needs to be promoted by government goes against ‘freedom of religion’. Why does Christianity need government support?

Now it looks like you are setting up a straw man argument here. The only person who has said anything about any religion needing to be promoted by the government here is you.

When a religion, which is already on an ‘agreed’ pedestal, in this case Christianity, is further supported and propped up by government, the government is in effect suppressing other religions, by not allowing them onto the same pedestal.

You are exagurating and generalizing to impose some view of equality that is in no way a part of the Establishment Clause.

Non-equality does not mean suppression. Another logical leap.

To be clear, suppression, in this case, only occurs when someone is prevented from practicing their religion, or is forced to practice another religion. That is not the case here. At best, one is expected to tolerate another religion (as in school prayer). That is hardly suppression.

Be careful. Your arguments in this thread are starting to have pretty big logical leaps and fallacies in them. Make sure you don't sacrifice your intellectual integrety in this thread. ;)

The government should never promote social equality? Really? I have always thought that is what the constitution/bill of rights was - a statement of social equality.

The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of rights by placing restrictions on the Federal Legislature. Nothing more, nothing less.

The government should recognize people equally, especially under the law. But promoting equality leads to suppression of freedom, cheifly the freedoms of those who have more, in favor of those who don't. Case in point, the "War on Poverty" which took financial freedom away from those who were successful in favor of those who weren't. Affirmative Action simply shifted racism in hiring from being against minorities to being against whites and males.

I can understand why you, as a modern liberal, would view things through the lens of equality. Modern liberalism is egalitarian liberalism. It prioritizes equality above all other values, including freedom, security, stability, civility, etc, etc. All those other values take a back seat to equality and are viewed though that lens. Therefore, your view of freedom is based on equality.

But the Framers didn't have that view. They were classical liberals, and the biggest philosophical value they had was freedom. Equality was secondary, and accepted as somewhat unrealistic. In the real world, there is and will always be inequality. The best you can do is make sure that the government recognizes everyone as equal under the law, and give everyone as much freedom as possible to try and change there status.
 
Well, before I attack the rest of your points.. a little point on the debate...

You may not use David Limbaugh - I haven't used one atheist site, or misquoted any founding father or framer, I have been very exacting in my quotes taking them from the Presidential Library of the President quoted, or from the College or Institution that archives the original material. At this point, to use a professed Christian activist as source is not acceptable.

And I have only used founding fathers and framers, avoiding using Paine or Allen or other men from that time frame who vehemently opposed any use of religion idiocracy in government. From Paine: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity." The Age of Reason. I could have used these to show what the atmosphere really was at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, but I felt them to be inflamatory, and I felt more comfortable using the actual creators of the documents quotes. If you want me to go after you with these quotes, from accepted critics and respected men that lived at the the time of the writing of the constitution, I have lots, and if nothing else by approximation to the actual time frame we are discussing they should be allowed before some current day radical Christian pundit.

Heck, I have even not used one of my favorites - because it is treaty form, and authorship is attributed to John Barlow and was 'merely' signed by John Adams "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility..." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

Nor have I taken this one out of context "Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell." Lots of people who use Adams like to just use the "This would be the best..." line - which is misleading.

Well, I won't rub it in too much that Scalia was on the 'losing' side in the case of Lee v. Weisman... however, I have also stated that I accept that Christianity is part of our American Heritage. Prayer opens many public events, and government events. Many Presidents have used their belief in God to bring the country together. I sat at the DNC and at every session it opened with prayer. I am not trying to say that we eliminate God from our heritage, or from our government, what I am trying to prevent is the Government actively promoting religion.


Whoops - forgot to paste this part

Yes, the states you mentioned had supported churches, but, after the bill of rights was ratified, they fell into line with the federal government. There was no dissention on this issue, not one of these states removed themselves from the United States because of this issue (even rascally and Puritan Mass. came around in 1833). It was accepted that the states or the government shouldn't promote religion. This was 'accepted' practice from that point forward until the 1930s (i.e. when the case of Cantwell v Connecticut was first heard in Connecticut court in 1938). That is why the 'silence' between the ratification and the 1930s - because the law was being obeyed.

So, based on the evidence you have provided up to this point (Scalia's dissent) the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the framers had a problem promoting Christianity, I have given proof, by stating the very documents we are discussing, as well as traceable, accurate quotes, from the founders themselves (not a modern day judge), that they had a big problem with this, as well as most of their contemporaries.

Now, maybe I can dream up some good answers to the rest of your points...;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is pretty well indusputable that the framers and their generation had no problems with the federal government promoting Christianity, and that tradition has been enshrined in our nation to this day.


OK, heck dreams do work…

Well, last night, between the dream about Scalia, the Rockettes and yellow chicken gravy and the one this morning about 7 foot tall rabbits in green space suits wanting to take me back to their home planet of Lepus Luna (I gotta quit having corn nuts and martinis as a bedtime snack) it came to me – what perhaps is causing this sort of drift here. I know the founding fathers didn’t want to promote Christianity, but, maybe what we are getting confused about is God. They had no problem promoting God. Nondenominational, all knowing, guiding spirit, watches over us, God.

There is a big difference. I probably assumed that we were both talking apples and rereading your arguments it looks like we were talking apples and communion wafers.

The Christian sects at that time (Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc) were in an upheaval, The framers were sick and tired of their bickering with the states and with each other. In fact – Jefferson’s letter that the wall of separation quote comes from is in response to a letter the Danbury Baptists sent Jefferson referring to the trouble that they were having with the state of Connecticut. Taxes were being routed to the Congregationalist Church, however the Baptists were receiving none. Obviously the state was favoring one denomination over another.

Jefferson spent a lot of time drafting that letter – the original draft survives, and is the object of an interesting study at the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html note, government site) the draft was far more explicit in Jefferson’s intent in the ‘separation of church and state). He toned it down…

So, just to make sure that you and I are debating the same point – we are talking about the religion of Christianity not being promoted, which the founding fathers went out of their way time and time again to say that the government is not in the business of promoting religion, it may use religious groups (like it used missionaries for a short time when interacting with the Indians, that soon fell by the wayside, when the missionaries were overstepping their bounds and in effect making slaves of the Indians), and use nondenominational prayer, and other references to 'God' but it will not promote any religion/church.

So, God, isn’t part of the “wall of separation” because that wall refers to the wall between Church and State, not God and State.

Or, maybe it is just the salt and alcohol talking...:)
 
Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

You may not use David Limbaugh - I haven't used one atheist site, or misquoted any founding father or framer, I have been very exacting in my quotes taking them from the Presidential Library of the President quoted, or from the College or Institution that archives the original material. At this point, to use a professed Christian activist as source is not acceptable.

Sorry, you don't get to change or redefine the rules in the middle of the debate. You can impose that standard on yourself, but not on me. I have not had any such standard in this debate. Besides, if you are demanding only direct sources, then it is going to take much longer then I am willing to put into this debate to make a decent post. Secondary sources are fair game.

The only question is the credibility of the source.

David Limbaugh is an attorney (with an attorney's attention to detail) and I have seen nothing to suggest he is not credible. No actions that show a lack of intellectual integrety that is likely due to being biased. And this tends to hold true for the majority of accomidationist sources and/or religious sources I have seen.

The same cannot be said for most athiest and/or activist separationist sources. You have strawman arguments, historical revisionism, out of context quotes and other fallacious and dishonest tactics used very often (if not the vast majority of the time) by these souces.

I could go into the reasons why this is, but that is a can of worms that would be more apt to a separate thread.

And I have only used founding fathers and framers, avoiding using Paine or Allen or other men from that time frame who vehemently opposed any use of religion idiocracy in government. From Paine: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity." The Age of Reason. I could have used these to show what the atmosphere really was at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, but I felt them to be inflamatory, and I felt more comfortable using the actual creators of the documents quotes. If you want me to go after you with these quotes, from accepted critics and respected men that lived at the the time of the writing of the constitution, I have lots, and if nothing else by approximation to the actual time frame we are discussing they should be allowed before some current day radical Christian pundit.

You have been assuming an 'Original Intent" interpretation. I don't. I go with an original meaning approach. It more accurately reflects how the constitution was generally understood and applied then original intent. Basically it asks the question, "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?" The answer to that question is much more instructive then looking at the intent, because the intent could be different among the different people who created and ratified it.

Heck, I have even not used one of my favorites - because it is treaty form, and authorship is attributed to John Barlow and was 'merely' signed by John Adams "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility..." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

Yeah, I am suprised you didn't bring the Treaty of Tripoli up yet.

Of course, it appears you are already aware of the "faulty translation issue" in regards to Barlow. Still lets look at the quote...

Here is the full quote:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation (Islamic), it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

You have to consider the historical context of that treaty and the politics surrounding it. We were in a war with Muslims who were used to European countries founded on Christianity of some variety being hostile to them. We were trying to distinguish ourselfs from that. The whole quote makes that rather clear.

It is also not inconsistant with what I have said regarding the Establishment Clause. "The government of the United States" is the Federal Government, which is prevented from establishing a religion per the Establishment Clause. It was set up nationally as a broadly religious freindly secular government, that joined the various state governments which were not prohibited from establishing a religion.

Well, I won't rub it in too much that Scalia was on the 'losing' side in the case of Lee v. Weisman... however, I have also stated that I accept that Christianity is part of our American Heritage. Prayer opens many public events, and government events. Many Presidents have used their belief in God to bring the country together. I sat at the DNC and at every session it opened with prayer. I am not trying to say that we eliminate God from our heritage, or from our government, what I am trying to prevent is the Government actively promoting religion.

A simple rundown of Christianity as part of our heritage is not why I say you should read the dissent. Here is a decent briefing on the case. It specifically deals with this constitutional question:

Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Yes, the states you mentioned had supported churches, but, after the bill of rights was ratified, they fell into line with the federal government. There was no dissention on this issue, not one of these states removed themselves from the United States because of this issue (even rascally and Puritan Mass. came around in 1833). It was accepted that the states or the government shouldn't promote religion.

That last line is a non sequiter and pure speculation. Yes the states disestablished there religions, but it doesn't follow that it was due to the states getting in line with the federal government. It could just as easily be due to the increasing religious diversity in the states.

In fact, the states felt no preasure to "fall into line" with the Feds due to federalism and the fact that it was understood that there was no restricition through the Establishment Clause on the states.

This was 'accepted' practice from that point forward until the 1930s (i.e. when the case of Cantwell v Connecticut was first heard in Connecticut court in 1938). That is why the 'silence' between the ratification and the 1930s - because the law was being obeyed.

Actually there was silence because there was no Establishment Clause that had any sway over the states. The Bill of Rights was written only as a restriction on the Federal Legislature. That is why Jefferson's "wall of separation" had the Federal government on one side and the religion along with State governments on the other.

That the Establishment Clause (as well as all other parts of the Bill or Rights) only applied to the Federal government was well understood by society. It is reflected in the jurisprudence of the SCOTUS up until they incorporated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause's in the cases of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), and Everson v. Board of Education (1947) respectively.

that act mischaracterized Jefferson's wall to apply those laws (incorporate) to the states, which is flagrantly in definance of what the Bill of Rights was set up to do, and gutted the whole idea of Federalism inherent in the Bill of Rights.

So, based on the evidence you have provided up to this point (Scalia's dissent) the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the framers had a problem promoting Christianity, I have given proof, by stating the very documents we are discussing, as well as traceable, accurate quotes, from the founders themselves (not a modern day judge), that they had a big problem with this, as well as most of their contemporaries.

I have provided more facts then that, and you know it. And just because Scalia is a "modern day judge" does not make his facts any less relevant.

The overwhelming evidence doesn't point to the framers having a problem with the promotion of Christianity. All you seem to have offered are assertions to the contrary based on the observation that is wasn't debated and voted on. The actions of the Framers and others at the time show what the general consensus was regarding the Establishment Clause and promoting Christianity in a very broad sense. They didn't have a problem with it. Remember, actions speak louder then words.;)

And as to post #63...

The Danbury Baptist letter by Jefferson was in reponse to a letter from the Baptists which said in part:

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, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights

Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson​

They were concerned that the wording of the Bill of Rights showed that the right to free exercise was not God-given but government given. That suggested that their Freedom of Religion could be taken away on a whim by the government.

And then there is this quote from Justice Joseph Story that you might find interesting:

The real object of the [First Amendment] was, not to countenance, much less 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 a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
 
Article 1 of the Northwest Ordinance:

No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Sorry, you don't get to change or redefine the rules in the middle of the debate.

And, not in the 'middle' (oh my gosh are we just in the middle :confused: my brain hurts) as far as not allowing a source - early on you sourced another Christian site, I questioned it, and, lo and behold, it was false. Christian sources should NOT be allowed to be used in reference when debating Christianity. It is only 'common sense'. I have avoided atheist sites at all costs here (although at a couple of points I sure wish I could have gone secular humanist...). I believe you belittle them as having “historical revisionism, out of context quotes and other fallacious and dishonest tactics used very often (if not the vast majority of the time) by these souces (sic).” That is fine – I accept your logic. I won’t use them, I don’t have to.

I could belittle your “accomidationist sources and/or religious sources” as well. But, why get into a battle that would be just words, words that obviously would fall on deaf ears. We need to allow them into the debate because you need them to support your viewpoint, which looks like it can’t stand on historical content.

But, should I need to discredit them one at a time I can - and you know, this will get silly – if you get to ‘blanket’ discredit sources I have YET to use, and I have to individually discredit a whole arsenal of questionable Christian sources.

You sited a Christian source earlier, it was false – therefore, I can place into argument, that for this particular debate, Christian sources should not be allowed (where oh where is the moderator… drat… ). You shouldn’t need them – you should be able to argue this on historical content.

So, Original Meaning – I am quoting the men who crafted the document, I have just started to quote men who lived during the time frame in question as to their viewpoints regarding Christianity and the idea of the government promoting it. I believe Thomas Paine to be a very reasonable individual. Benjamin Franklin is a pretty good source. Ethan Allan is always good for a ‘Christianity is out of control” quote. The 'Father of our Country' is great source, and since he never even mentions Jesus Christ in any of his letters (well, there is debate on one... but... one, come on, over hundreds and hundreds of letters...)

I have read Scalia’s Dissent… have you read Kennedy’s Opinion?

“The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lynch, supra, at 678; see also Allegheny County, supra, at 591 quoting Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.”

He is easily as eloquent as Scalia, and, perhaps more so, since he was counted on to go with the right on this issue (he is a conservative judge, placed into office by Reagan). Instead, his vote continued to keep church and state separate.

And yes, the states ‘felt no pressure’ into falling into line on the 1st amendment – it was accepted that there should be reasonable restriction on religion within government. (Heck, you did it…)

But, (here we go again) Jefferson didn’t have the Federal government on one side and the grouping of “states and religion’ on the other. Where do you get this? “thus building a wall of separation between church and state” (direct quote again) He was talking to a group of Baptists who were complaining about their state government. Why would he be grouping the State and Church on one side (he would be placing the Baptists with the State, which they were complaining about), and the Federal Government on the other side? It makes absolutely no sense within the context of the letter.

Oh the rest of the Danbury letter…
and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments 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.



However I haven’t see any other facts from you on the ‘mood of the people at the time of the ratification’ other than that some states still held on to having state sponsored religion for a short period after ratification, and the Scalia Dissent. I didn’t use Kennedy or any other Opinions (note careful use of capital letters) of the court up until this point, because I felt that because they are modern-day opinions they could be clouded by current thought. I will gladly start quoting SCOTUS Opinion (no need to quote Dissent here).

Remember - and I do want you to somehow state this - because I am questioning this again. The argument here isn't that God should be promoted or not, it is that Christianity should or should not be promoted - is that right?

And, since we are quoting Justices, I guess, just because we like them… (I have lots and lots of these too)

The Free Exercise Clause protects the individual from any coercive measure that encourages him toward one faith or creed, discourages him from another, or makes it prudent or desirable for him to select one and embrace it.
-- William O Douglas, The Bible and the Schools, 1966, p. 10
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And as to post #63...

The Danbury Baptist letter by Jefferson was in reponse to a letter from the Baptists which said in part:

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, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights

Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson​

They were concerned that the wording of the Bill of Rights showed that the right to free exercise was not God-given but government given. That suggested that their Freedom of Religion could be taken away on a whim by the government.
That's the problem with depending on wallbuilders.com for quotes and information. The quote above is grossly condensed in order to get their point of view across. The entire letter reads (I've highlighted some parts left out of Shag's quote):

Sir:

Among the many millions 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 costly 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 neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws 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 favor 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 pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man - should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative 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 cause 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 good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise 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,

The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson​

They were clearly writing about the persecution and humiliation they were enduring under Connecticut's constitution, which established the Congregational Church as the official state church, and expressing their wish that the same rights found in the US constitution would eventually find their way into the state governments.

The line, "[t]hat the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor" should also make clear the Baptist's thoughts on the government's role in regards to religion. In fact, the whole second paragraph needs to be read in full, especially the last sentence, in order to understand what the intent of the letter really was. To leave out those sections is blatantly dishonest and completely distorts the meaning of the letter.
 
Shag---very well stated above! (I have the impression that Fox-- is arguing more for fun than from some far-distant-based position.
KS
 
Shag---very well stated above! (I have the impression that Fox-- is arguing more for fun than from some far-distant-based position.
KS

I disagree she started the thread and I think she is debating for more then fun. She is driving a point.
Plus she has stayed away from the my source is better then your source that drags so many of these threads down.
My hats off. :gr_hail:
 
That's the problem with depending on wallbuilders.com for quotes and information. The quote above is grossly condensed in order to get their point of view across. The entire letter reads (I've highlighted some parts left out of Shag's quote):

Sir:

Among the many millions 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 costly 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 neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws 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 favor 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 pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man - should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative 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 cause 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 good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise 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,

The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson​

They were clearly writing about the persecution and humiliation they were enduring under Connecticut's constitution, which established the Congregational Church as the official state church, and expressing their wish that the same rights found in the US constitution would eventually find their way into the state governments.

The line, "[t]hat the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor" should also make clear the Baptist's thoughts on the government's role in regards to religion. In fact, the whole second paragraph needs to be read in full, especially the last sentence, in order to understand what the intent of the letter really was. To leave out those sections is blatantly dishonest and completely distorts the meaning of the letter.
Mkay, first of all, Shag's quote isn't chopped, but merely snipped. Second, you highlighted parts that are included in his quote. Third, the meaning of the highlighted parts in no way changes the meaning of the letter as quoted by Shag.

FAIL.
 
Actually I do have very strong feelings about this subject, cammerfe.

However, I do like a great argument, and have been known to play 'devils advocate' a few times. But, if I am playing 'devil' (you know the best part of the costume is the tail;)) I usually let it degrade into name calling, source bashing and silliness, long before investing this much.

Marcus, thanks - Sometimes Shag throws so much at me that I am a bit overwhelmed. I hope that you and others are checking me too. Sometimes in the 'heat of battle' I misquote or mislead, and I don't mean to do that.

What I am arguing is that I truly believe that the founding fathers, who yes, were Christians, and for the most part really good Christians, really didn't want the government to have any part in choosing religion. These men were free thinkers of the very best kind. They knew that force feeding faith is wrong (they lived through plenty of 'force feeding'). And if the government even leaning towards one sect of Christianity it is akin to establishing a state religion. You don't have to label it "state religion" to in effect have one.

As Kennedy said in his Opinion -
"the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise"

The government, because of its huge size and influence could easily coerce the people, through subtle manipulation and the behind closed doors transformation of rules, and before you know it we have a state religion in all but name.

And thanks nut- I have been trying really hard to debate and not let this degrade too much...:)

"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
John Leland, Baptist Minister (one of the men who signed the Danbury Baptists' letter to Jefferson), 1820, Short Essays on Government
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mkay, first of all, Shag's quote isn't chopped, but merely snipped. Second, you highlighted parts that are included in his quote. Third, the meaning of the highlighted parts in no way changes the meaning of the letter as quoted by Shag.

FAIL.
Mkay, so I incorrectly highlighted the part about "That the legitimate Power of Civil Government..." So sue me. By the way, I said "some parts", not everything. I was just highlighting what I thought were the important parts that were left out.

Regardless of the nitpicking, I stand by my statement that Shag's interpretation of the letter is off the mark. They were NOT writing to express concern about the federal Bill of Rights. When they said "our constitution of government" they were referring to Connecticut's constitution, which did indeed consider worship outside of the state church as "favors granted".

Personally I don't see how it makes an argument either way and I'm sorry I brought it up.
 
Tu quoque much? My kind have been in since the beginning, and, um, we don't live in the middle ages. Sorry, but you FAIL.

since the beginning? christianity came late on the scene of religious ferver. and if we stayed under christian ideals, the world would probably still be flat and the center of the universe. for this, you FAIL.

sorry foxpaws, i digressed. i've argued with shag before over this,(sort of) but then i don't have the "american" education as you do. if it went to vote, i'd see you ahead (but there are a lot of right wingers around here, in case you didn't notice. christian right at that)
 
since the beginning? christianity came late on the scene of religious ferver. and if we stayed under christian ideals, the world would probably still be flat and the center of the universe. for this, you FAIL.

sorry foxpaws, i digressed. i've argued with shag before over this,(sort of) but then i don't have the "american" education as you do. if it went to vote, i'd see you ahead (but there are a lot of right wingers around here, in case you didn't notice. christian right at that)
Since the beginning of this country.

And your "world is flat" comment is a non sequitur.
 
mr hrmwrm...

I'll swing us back on topic - no problem, I like the support

And, I was right - It is sort of like watching point/counterpoint - I'll strive to continue to hold up the moderate left... ;)

And Shag, another tiny point of debate - when you quote someone like David Limbaugh - I sort of get a preview of the upcoming posts...:)
 
mr hrmwrm...

I'll swing us back on topic - no problem, I like the support

And, I was right - It is sort of like watching point/counterpoint - I'll strive to continue to hold up the moderate left... ;)

And Shag, another tiny point of debate - when you quote someone like David Limbaugh - I sort of get a preview of the upcoming posts...:)
What do you know about David Limbaugh?
 

Members online

Back
Top