'Original meaning' and the constitution

[Marcus]

gonna have to do better then an ad hominem circumstansial point to discredit Barton as a source.

Can you show him taking things out of context?

The passage that Fossten quoted isn't enough? LOL

This site (WARNING!!! ATHEIST ALERT!!!) demonstrates his misleading and false claims:
http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/boston2.htm

And here's Barton himself trying to cover his tracks on quotes he's been called out on:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126

the idea of Natural Rights is one example. I need to find some old papers to get more, but I don't have time at the moment.

You really need to look into the meaning of "natural rights" in more depth before trying to use it as an argument in favor of Christian influence in early American political thought.

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, the Danbury Baptist letter...

His wall of separation was completely different then what it means today. Today, it means a wall with government on one side and religion on the other. What Jefferson ment was a wall with the federal government on one side and religion and all lesser governments (state, county, city) on the other.

So, you knew Jefferson - I would like to see somewhere where this definition was ever attributed to Jefferson. His viewpoints freedom of religion and separation of church and state are well documented... from the University of Virginia, who keeps many of Jefferson's original letters, writings, etc.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Mostly what I want to know is why is there all this conjecture? Even with Jefferson - one of the brightest men of his time (and certainly when it comes to democracy perhaps ever) why would he not write what he thought? I think if he meant a wall between federal and lesser governments (as well as religion) he would have stated that. It doesn't say 'church, including states and the federal government' it very obviously is 'church and state' - if anything you could argue that he was looking to separate church and state governments, they really knew the difference back then...

 

[fossten]

Christ as part of the holy trinity was here at the beginning of time, however, Christianity (the religion) at the very earliest could have only started with the birth of Christ.

You're referring to the church, actually, which started at the death of Christ.

I don't think we actually disagree here. I think what we're discussing is a distinction without a difference. We both know when the Ten Commandments was given, and to whom, and why. My position is that Christianity actually does make use of the Ten Commandments, and in fact holds them as the supreme test of worthiness to enter heaven.

We know that God gave moses the TC on stone tablets on Mount Sinai. During this period the Jews could only achieve remission of sin through sacrifice of a lamb without blemish. The symbolism of this was forward-looking toward Christ's eventual death on the Cross as the final sacrifice, as the book of Hebrews discusses.

The Jews rejected the prophets, who predicted Jesus, and they eventually crucified Jesus. They still believe that the Messiah has not yet come. According to the New Testament, which they do not accept, Jesus is the Messiah and at the end of time he will reveal himself to them and they will accept Him. However, Judaism is based on their mistaken belief.

Jesus Himself taught that the Ten Commandments was the standard to enter heaven. To this day, true Christianity, which is not technically a religion, but a personal encounter and relationship with Christ, is based on the law (the Ten Commandments) and the relationship between the law, those of us that are and were lost, and Christ, who is the only possible way to avoid the judgment based on that law.

 

[cammerfe]

You're referring to the church, actually, which started at the death of Christ.

I don't think we actually disagree here. I think what we're discussing is a distinction without a difference. We both know when the Ten Commandments was given, and to whom, and why. My position is that Christianity actually does make use of the Ten Commandments, and in fact holds them as the supreme test of worthiness to enter heaven.

We know that God gave moses the TC on stone tablets on Mount Sinai. During this period the Jews could only achieve remission of sin through sacrifice of a lamb without blemish. The symbolism of this was forward-looking toward Christ's eventual death on the Cross as the final sacrifice, as the book of Hebrews discusses.

The Jews rejected the prophets, who predicted Jesus, and they eventually crucified Jesus. They still believe that the Messiah has not yet come. According to the New Testament, which they do not accept, Jesus is the Messiah and at the end of time he will reveal himself to them and they will accept Him. However, Judaism is based on their mistaken belief.

Jesus Himself taught that the Ten Commandments was the standard to enter heaven. To this day, true Christianity, which is not technically a religion, but a personal encounter and relationship with Christ, is based on the law (the Ten Commandments) and the relationship between the law, those of us that are and were lost, and Christ, who is the only possible way to avoid the judgment based on that law.

Excellent exposition!!!
KS

 

[fossten]

Got this in an email:

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie,' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians ... it creates a hostile work environment.

 

[foxpaws]

well, back to Original meaning...

Shag - not Connecticut - Massachusetts's... I was attempting to throw a bone and I got the wrong state - sorry... Massachusett's constitution is rife with kowtowing to God - putting religions (specifically Protestant) into schools, paying for Protestant teachers to instruct us on piety, religion and morality.

Should of remembered - that rascal John Adams -

Of course this has been amended over time - but this is what the original Massachusetts' Constitution states:

Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation in their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

May I suggest you might consider moving to Boston?

It is hard to remember that at one point Massachusetts was so puritanical. At this point in history they were less than 100 years from the Salem witch hunts - and Ted Kennedy was 200 years in their future.

Looking quickly (I was tired last night) at the other 12 states' constitutions/bill of rights - many mention God - not surprising, but when you get out of the preambles and intros to the 'lists' of rights the wording quickly changes to 'religion', to march with the constitution.

Personally I do like Connecticut's - maybe that is why it was stuck in my 3 brain cells that were active last night... Mostly they want to make sure licentiousness isn't just going to break out (no doubt the witches from Salem moved south...)

The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to
all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby
declared and established, shall not be so construed as to
excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices
inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

 

[shagdrum]

You really need to look into the meaning of "natural rights" in more depth before trying to use it as an argument in favor of Christian influence in early American political thought.

Not really...

Natural Rights, as understood by the Framers, was pretty specific. You can even see it in the Declaration of Independance; "we are endowed by our Creator with certian inalienable rights".

 

[fossten]

Point of order, Chief: Declaration states "unalienable," not "inalienable."

UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

[snip]

 

[shagdrum]

Opps....sorry
Good looking out!

 

[foxpaws]

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The government derives its powers from the consent of the people.

Not from God.

And before we get all distracted from this - The Declaration of Independence is NOT law (although there are cases for organic law) - the Constitution is the law of the land. A good point David, however, on inalienable vs unalienable, people often confuse the two.

Back to original meaning, natural rights and the constitution.

"Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." -Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience". Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." - James Madison: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785

In both cases, Jefferson and Madison believed that natural rights, from God, allowed for the fact that God did not instill in man a belief in Himself, but that each man found their own path to God, and that if this path was hindered by others, then it would be an offense against God, not man.

Therefore the wall of separation between 'state' and 'religion'. That the offense of man dictating religion to his fellow man is abhorrent to God, and against natural rights.

 

[fossten]

Nobody in this thread has claimed that the government derives its power from God. So I suppose you're refuting a straw man. Either that or you're confusing rights with government powers.

 

[foxpaws]

No - not meaning to add a straw man argument - just looking to find the relationship that the founding fathers found between natural rights, civil law and God.

 

[shagdrum]

Natural rights come from God; specifically being made in God's image entitles humans to certian rights that cannot be taken away by anyone less then God (without due process).

The government is set up to protect those rights. The authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed; social contract theory.

Natural law, as defined by Locke (which is basically the definition this country is founded on), is specifically Life, Liberty and Property.

Does that help?

 

[foxpaws]

So, is freedom of religion a natural right? Does it fall under "Liberty" according to Locke?

 

[shagdrum]

Liberty is a very vague term in the declaration, and various areas in other founding documents. It has gotten increasingly broadly interpreted since then.

Freedom of religion would probably fall under the definition of liberty according to Locke, but I would want to do more research before saying conclusively. Everything I have read concerning the concept of liberty (at least from Locke and the time of the framing) is very vague, IMO. What are the limits, what is and isn't included is not very clear.

Locke was dealing in philosophy, and things like the declaration were aspiring to ideals. More concrete founding documents like the constitution are a different story, as well as actual law...


In short...good question.

 

[hrmwrm]

Natural rights come from God; specifically being made in God's image entitles humans to certian rights that cannot be taken away by anyone less then God (without due process).

The government is set up to protect those rights. The authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed; social contract theory.

Natural law, as defined by Locke (which is basically the definition this country is founded on), is specifically Life, Liberty and Property.

Does that help?

so you have a problematic debate on whether god is real. because if god doesn't exist, then natural rights don't exist. sounds like it's hinged on a pretty flaky basis. if truly fought on the existance of god, it crumbles.

 

[fossten]

so you have a problematic debate on whether god is real. because if god doesn't exist, then natural rights don't exist. sounds like it's hinged on a pretty flaky basis. if truly fought on the existance of god, it crumbles.

And this is where the Communists in Soviet Russia got their justification for denying the freedom of worship.

Congratulations for illustrating the point.

God help us if people like you ever take power in this country.

 

[shagdrum]

so you have a problematic debate on whether god is real. because if god doesn't exist, then natural rights don't exist. sounds like it's hinged on a pretty flaky basis. if truly fought on the existance of god, it crumbles.

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...

 

[foxpaws]

This is not a discussion about God - but about original meaning and the constitution. Freedom of religion also means freedom of no religion. I think we are discussing the 'freedoms'.

I still think when you look at the writings of the founders/framers as a whole, they felt that government should not get in the way of certain 'liberties' and at the forefront of those 'liberties' was religion - the very first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights. They were very concerned with the natural right that all men find their own way to God. That God speaks to us in different ways and at different times, and that no government can dictate how this path is found or followed, they can't tell you what methods to use to follow your path, or, in fact, guide it, fund any one type of path, support in law any one path, or even question the path you take, so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others.

 

[shagdrum]

I still think when you look at the writings of the founders/framers as a whole, they felt that government should not get in the way of certain 'liberties' and at the forefront of those 'liberties' was religion - the very first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights. They were very concerned with the natural right that all men find their own way to God. That God speaks to us in different ways and at different times, and that no government can dictate how this path is found or followed, they can't tell you what methods to use to follow your path, or, in fact, guide it, fund any one type of path, support in law any one path, or even question the path you take, so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others.

Don't know about the talk of "can't fund one type of path, Support in lay any one path" or any of that. Otherwise, you have pretty well conveyed how natural rights are applied when it comes to the free exercise of the 1st amendment.

the Establishment Clause seems to be the area you may not fully understand, IMO.

 

[foxpaws]

OK - the 'establish' clause - the first section of the two dealing with religion... "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Seems pretty clear to me... what 'understanding' do you think I am missing?

And, if you review the original 13s state's constitutions - that is where they mostly get into funding... perhaps the framers felt the funding issue (as they felt with most 'money issues') was best left to the states. So, I will give you the funding issue - not mentioned in the constitution - left to state rights. They all (except that rascal Adams again) prohibit 'public' money going to religion.

 

[shagdrum]

OK - the 'establish' clause - the first section of the two dealing with religion... "."

Seems pretty clear to me... what 'understanding' do you think I am missing?

You are right, it is pretty clear. "Congress...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Basically, Congress cannot establish a Church of America or establish any one religion as the official religion of America. That is it. Doesn't say anything about funding, or even promoting religion, just that it cannot establish a religion.

That has gotten distorted to mean a "wall of separation", which is a gross distortion of the Establishment Clause.

 

[foxpaws]

But, if the federal government 'promotes' a religion, isn't it going against the natural rights that are applied to the constitution as a whole - by promoting a religion the government is choosing 'sides' as it were. It would be promoting your (for instance) path, over my (again example) path. Just as establishing a religion, viewing one religion as 'promotable', excluding others, would be against the natural rights of choosing your own path, because the liberty (per Locke) of different paths would eventually be drowned out in the constant 'promoting' of the government's religion (or path) of choice.

Natural rights come from God; specifically being made in God's image entitles humans to certian rights that cannot be taken away by anyone less then God (without due process).

Don't those rights include the peaceful practice of your religion, without the interference (by law or promotion or preference) of the government?

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

Isn't the promoting of a religion by the government a maneuver to place one religion in a place of federal favor?

You need to apply natural law to the entire clause - not just the 2nd half.

 

[shagdrum]

But, if the federal government 'promotes' a religion, isn't it going against the natural rights that are applied to the constitution as a whole - by promoting a religion the government is choosing 'sides' as it were. It would be promoting your (for instance) path, over my (again example) path. Just as establishing a religion, viewing one religion as 'promotable', excluding others, would be against the natural rights of choosing your own path, because the liberty (per Locke) of different paths would eventually be drowned out in the constant 'promoting' of the government's religion (or path) of choice.



Don't those rights include the peaceful practice of your religion, without the interference (by law or promotion or preference) of the government?

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

Isn't the promoting of a religion by the government a maneuver to place one religion in a place of federal favor?

You need to apply natural law to the entire clause - not just the 2nd half.

Specifically what right is being infringed upon by promoting a religion? And specifically how?

I don't see how simply promoting a religion would in any way infringe upon the freedom of religion. Saying that, "the liberty...of different paths would eventually be drowned out in the constant 'promoting' of the government's religion (or path) of choice" is a stretch. This nation was almost exclusively Christian (in some form) when the country was founded. Other religions didn't get drowned out, in fact many have flourished and grown here, even though the government was effectively promoting Christianity for the majority of that time.

I think you are confusing the free exercise clause with the establishment clause. All your talk of choosing one religious path over another would fall into the area of free exercise, which Congress is prevented from interfering with, and is a protected right.

The reason for the Establishment Clause is to further insure the right to choose a religion. But, promoting a religion is different then establishing a religion. It is a matter of degree, but it is an important one.

Merely promoting a religion (or religion in general) in no way infringes on the freedom to choose a religion and practice that religion. The only danger lies in the possibility that promoting a religion can lead to an effective establishment of religion, which is why the Establishment Clause was included in the 1st Amendment.

While some Framers and influencial people involved in the government at that time (Jefferson being one of them) had a very broad view of the Establishment Clause (viewing it as preventing the Federal government from even promoting a religion), the vast majority had a much more narrow view of the Establishment Clause. This is indicated not only in quotes, but in the various actions taken that effectively enshrined Christianity in the traditions of this nation.

In fact, the Framers viewed religion as necessary for the American experiment to work. To have a society so free would mean to allow for more realization of both the good and the evil that is inherent in human nature. The only way to curb that evil was religion.

So, while American wasn't founded as a Christian (or otherwise religious) nation in the traditional sense (basically, theocracy), it was a nation made for a religious people; specifically Christianity, at the time.

 

[foxpaws]

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?

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 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? That statement alone goes against natural rights. How can the government promote a religion without spending public funds on it? How can the government hope to settle religious disputes if it is promoting one of the religions in the dispute? And how is the presentation of religion going to take place? How does the government decide what ideologies should be promoted? If we allow a religious leader take that post we have started down the road to theocracy.

"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

Or to narrow its operation - 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?