Separation of Church and State

[shield772]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Then, if you insist that Creationism is taught in science class, you must allow all religions to be taught in science class. This is, of course, if you ignore what science is. But if you must have your way, you must also let all other religions have their way into the science class.

It's up to each individual state, I would support a comparison religion class in High Schools

[Right of Center]

History does not work against me and I repeat myself in hopes that people get the point I am making. It is true Isherwood that the founding fathers did not want to make this country a Christian nation. They wanted every religion to have freedom to worship in our country. However these people grew up with parents, grandparents, friends, and relatives that were all Christian. They grew up with a Christian sense of morality. These people may not be christian but you cannot dismiss the fact that their ethics were shaped around Christian epoch. They grew up with the Christian idea of right and wrong. They grew up knowing what was proper and what was absurd, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Europe's ethos was tempered by Judeo-Christian and classical belief systems. These ideas transfered to America. The ideals of America are Christian. Give me one bit of the constitution that defies the Christian ideals. It's perfectly fine if you don't think that America was not founded on Christianity. It's perfectly fine if you don't want mentions of God. However, I know that you will never be completely seperated from the church, because your sense of right and wrong, the laws you obey, and the founding of your nation has been tempered and influenced by Christianity. Go ahead and tell me that your moralities are not influenced by Christianity and that our laws have not been influenced by Christianity, however it is apparent to anyone that looks that it is.

[shield772]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Judeo/Christian sentiments

[Jack]

While I reserve the right to differ on the opinion that the founding fathers established this country on ethics and morals grounded specifically in christianity, I will grant you that the influence of religion and theistic attitudes were presumed to be normal and accepted by nearly all the citizens then as it is now in government.

I'd further agree that my early upbringing was influenced by theistic morals. Again, in the 50's that was considered normal. But as I grew I refined my moral and ethical beliefs based on my own life experiences. My current standards are not influenced in any way by theology.

It's the same with a nation. Whatever the influences were at the beginning, we've had 200 years to determine which standards help maintain our society. The fact that many of our national "beliefs" mirror those of the bible are irrelevant. They also reflect those of Buddhism and other belief systems. Prohibitions against killing, stealing and such are not reserved to christianity.

In other words, we as a nation have grown beyond the need to turn to the bible for guidance in governing ourselves. We have enough experience to know what keeps our society healthy and what causes us harm. Our founding fathers also thought poorly of women, non-whites and native Americans. They thought the country should be governed by male, white landowners. Do we still think those are beliefs are valid in our century?

If religion fades in its influence on our politicians, we will not become a barbaric nation of savages. Fundamentalism is bound to do more harm than good to our country. It's grounded in attitudes that were common 2000 years ago but not relevant to our modern world.

[shield772]

Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620 IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

This being the original document on this continent is rife with references to God and the Christian faith.

[Jack]

But there's also this;

TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI OF BARBARY 8 Stat. 154, Treaty Series 358 Treaty signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797. Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797. Ratified by the President of the United States June 10, 1797 Entered into force June 10, 1797 Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 10, 1797. ARTICLE 11 "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,-- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religous opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It almost makes one suspect that politicians, even the founding fathers, may have said whatever was convenient at the moment without regard to their personal beliefs. The christians on this forum have frequently accused each other of not being true christians. I don't see christianity as a cohesive, consistent philosophy.

[shield772]

Quote by: Isherwood But there's also this; It almost makes one suspect that politicians, even the founding fathers, may have said whatever was convenient at the moment without regard to their personal beliefs. The christians on this forum have frequently accused each other of not being true christians. I don't see christianity as a cohesive, consistent philosophy.

I don't either, I do not believe that our government is christian, I do not believe the constitution nor the laws of our nation are based on christianity, but the people who settled here and founded this nation were christian. But I wouldn't want the government to follow christianity, they couldn't protect us, you are supposed to be meek and turn the other cheek and i don't want the US government to act in that fashion.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: shield772 The first amendment prohibits congress from passing any law concerning religion, period, all encompassing, so yes when they put in god we trust on the money and under god in the pledge it was unconstitutional, but the federal congress does not run my local schools, they have no authority over them so the first amendment does not apply to what is taught in schools. only the states have power over that. so you have taught just as they do in public schools your interpretation of the 1st amendment and this must stop, the founders put what they meant, that was the scope of the amendment and using to prohibit anything but congress is unconstitutional.

Take a few law classes... The First Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth. See Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, "The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states..."

Also, your quotes of the Plimouth settlers and the Declaration of Independence are nice reading, but they are irrelevant. Neither document formed the government of the United States of America. They are only slightly more relevant to what our laws are than Harry Potter. However, Isherwood's quote of the Barbary treaty IS relevant since it was signed after the ratification of the Constitution, by our current government.

[shield772]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Take a few law classes... The First Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth. See Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, "The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states..." Also, your quotes of the Plimouth settlers and the Declaration of Independence are nice reading, but they are irrelevant. Neither document formed the government of the United States of America. They are only slightly more relevant to what our laws are than Harry Potter. However, Isherwood's quote of the Barbary treaty IS relevant since it was signed after the ratification of the Constitution, by our current government.

My point was that this nation was founded by christian men.

[shield772]

How does the 14th amendment enfore an amendment that only applies to congress by it's very language?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe that is the part you are talkig about, tell me how that puts a restriction on the states that only applies to congress?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: shield772 How does the 14th amendment enfore an amendment that only applies to congress by it's very language? I believe that is the part you are talkig about, tell me how that puts a restriction on the states that only applies to congress?

I removed the text of the Amendment since I am intimately familiar with it.

Are you arguing or asking to be educated? If you are asking to be educated in the Constitutional law principal of incorporation, I can help, at least as it relates to the First Amendment....

Quote by: Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states

You might also want to look at Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39.

These are both Supreme Court cases that explain why, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the States cannot violate the Constitutional rights granted in the First Amendment. The concept is called "incorporation" - that because of the 14th Amendment the States cannot violate the federal Constitutional rights of a U.S. Citizen.

[Zinkovich]

shield777: You do know many of the Founding Fathers were deists and unitarians, and thus some were not referring to the Christian God when they mentioned "divine providence", but some sort of personificaiton of the universe that can be commuted with through reason? Others, being unitarian(sometimes while being deist; not all deism is of the "universal personification" sort), believed in universal salvation and were against the restriction of certain moral/ideological choices, as well as being strongly opposesed to the propogation of religion by the state.

The Christianity the more religious founding fathers followed was VERY different then the Christianity followed by many evangelicals today. Their "Christian principles" diverged sharply from the fire and brimstone/puritan from of Christianity.

To list some of these founding fathers:
John Adams – Congregationalist; Unitarian (MA)

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced![2]

George Washington – Deist; Episcopalian (VA)

Washington sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however, there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any church, and he would regularly leave services before communion — with the other non-communicants, until he ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Historians and biographers continue to debate the degree to which he can be counted as a Christian, and the degree to which he was a deist. Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent that he cared not if the workers were Mohammedans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or Atheists, as long as they were good workers.[22]

Thomas Jefferson – Deist; Unitarian (VA)
Note:

Though a vestryman (lay officer) of the Church of England in Virginia before the revolution, his beliefs were primarily Deist. Unlike its effect on Congregational churches, Deism had little influence on Episcopal churches, which have a more hierarchical structure and are thus slower to modify their teachings. Of only three things Jefferson chose for his epitaph, one was the 1786 Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom. Jefferson's views are considered very close to Unitarian.

James Madison – Deist; Episcopalian (VA)
Posting this as a side note:

After retiring from public life, Madison composed his "detached memorandum" in which he denounced Congress's appointment of and payment of chaplains, both civilian and military, as inconsistent "with the pure principles of religious freedom." In the same memorandum, he also assailed "religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts."[7]

(Thank you wikipedia)

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shield Judeo/Christian sentiments

Genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women are also Judeo/Christian sentiments, shield, all clearly condoned in the Bible. Deny it if you care to.


.

[underbear1]

Puritans who were the first permanent european colony traveled here for the specific issue they were being oppressed by the state sanctioned brand of Christianity, and they sought NO STATE SANCTIONED RELIGION.When the poster above speaks of Christianity and Christian beliefs he speaks if they are a monolith. We have Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Calvinists, Community Churches, Church of Christ, Mormons..........each is unique, and damn few agree about too many articles of faith.
Besides what was true in the 17th and 18th Centuries is beyond obsolete, hell things in the 20th Century are barely relevent.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . Genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women are also Judeo/Christian sentiments, shield, all clearly condoned in the Bible. Deny it if you care to. .

None of those sentiments were condoned in the Bible. They may appear in the Bible, but that is not condoning.

Analogy: Simply because "The Hunt for Red October" contained instances of Russian subs being destroyed does not mean that Tom Clancy condones the killing of Russian sailors.

[grandpa]

Hold on, doesn't the Bible say women should not speak in Church?

Grandpa h.

[Jack]

None of those sentiments were condoned in the Bible. They may appear in the Bible, but that is not condoning.

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
That's condoning.

[shield772]

Quote by: grandpa Hold on, doesn't the Bible say women should not speak in Church? Grandpa h.

It says women should not teach men, they may teach other women and children as long as the male children are under a certain age.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Isherwood Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That's condoning.

That's Old Testament. Perhaps I misspoke... Such sentiments may be contained in or even peripherally accepted in the Bible, but in the Christian religion, that is, following the teachings of Jesus, they are not.

Quote by: Grandpa Hold on, doesn't the Bible say women should not speak in Church?

LOL... This reminds me of The Daily Show. The other night they did a piece on how news channels use the question mark... they can say any load of bullshit they want if they phrase it as a question. Anyway, as to your question and shield's response, I'd like to see Bible verses quoted, preferably New Testament, most preferably the words of Jesus.

[shield772]

Quote by: tivodan1116 That's Old Testament. Perhaps I misspoke... Such sentiments may be contained in or even peripherally accepted in the Bible, but in the Christian religion, that is, following the teachings of Jesus, they are not. LOL... This reminds me of The Daily Show. The other night they did a piece on how news channels use the question mark... they can say any load of bullshit they want if they phrase it as a question. Anyway, as to your question and shield's response, I'd like to see Bible verses quoted, preferably New Testament, most preferably the words of Jesus.

Correct, I agree but I have found it increasingly difficult to get them to understand the difference between old and new testament/old and new covenant