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.
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.