Lets start a conversation... Church and State and...

(or maybe it'll be a small bonfire)

In the (link in bold) "Inside the Beltway" column in today's (11-24-2004) The Washington Times, is the following news item:

God forbid



This note just adds to many in issues where supposed Church and State separation have eroded away traditions that harmed no one while providing benefit to many.

A few years back, Firefighters in Montgomery County Maryland were barred by the local politicians from having Santa participate in "Christmas" celebrations that had been a tradition for years. A link: Santa March saves the day for Kensington Town, Montgomery County, Maryland!

There's been the recent history of decisions against display of the Ten Commandments in court rooms or any other public land/buildings. For example, google on "judge roy moore ten commandments". (Actually, the Supreme Court of the U.S. is finally taking a case or two -- actually two -- related to this issue, it should be interesting to see the results of the cases).

Before that, we've had decisions that have banned pre-meal prayers at State funded Military schools.

All of the above has been going on while a fairly sizable amount of the country sat back and got more frustrated and more angry at the decline in moral values (see the discussions posted about recent polls) and the efforts to eradicate morality out of our society as a whole (starting especially in schools, where instead, we have an effort to quickly implement sensitivity training).


With all of this said, we really do need to look at the changes that have been made in our society, at the efforts by groups like the ACLU (which is anything but Civil) to purge our system of moral values and eliminate any group that might possibly seen as not tolerating others through any practices that might be "exclusive" of any one or any thing.

Is it time to have our legislators and our government create laws that clear up the separation clause and bring it back to a point where freedom of religion isn't implemented as "freedom from religon" and where anything that may relate to a diety must be excised out of society? Do we need or want Congress to take up the issues? Or perhaps is it something that should come through the court system (specifically the Supreme Court) and which reaffirms that groups like the Boy Scouts have as much right to exist and use public facilities as do (for example) the Black Student Unions, the gay and lesbian activist groups, and others that must be tolerated and accepted because they are not exclusive and don't mention God or any diety in their charters?

Bring on the discussion, and really state your case as to what is right, and where should we go from here. Please remember though to be respectful of others, and not make personal attacks. (Attack the positions yes, the persons no). Thanks in advance.
14,865 views 61 replies
Reply #1 Top

efforts to eradicate morality out of our society 

this appears to be based on a false assumption that religion has a monopoly on morality. 

bring it back to a point where freedom of religion isn't implemented as "freedom from religon" 

rather than bringing it back,  youre actually suggesting we disregard jefferson's assertion of a "wall of separation between church and state" in his letter to the danbury baptists, madison's concurrance in 1819 that both religion and government benefited "by the total separation of the church and state" and the supreme court's consistent determination that jefferson's position (1879 reynolds v. us)  "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the  amendment" and (1947 everson v. board of ed, justice black) "in the words of jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state."

Reply #2 Top

Wrong on both counts Kingbee.  Tell us where morality comes from if not from a beleif?  Ok,dont call it religion, but where?

Secular humanism?  Where each morals are no better than another?  I beleive that killing red heads is moral, so I cant be convicted right?

And wrong on your last point.  The wall exists.  I am a Jeffersonian conservative.  He said wall, but not 'from'.  You failed to answer the point.  Jefferson was an agnostic.  He never wanted there to be 'no god'. just that he could worship his god.  Nothing that the courts are doing today even remotely follows that logic.  There is no church of America.  But the only outlawed church is the Christian (Catholics included) church.  You can pray and preach and talk about Jews, Hindus, and Muslims in school all you want.  But you cannot broach any christian subjects.

So answer this.  Is that freedom of religion? Or freedom FROM religion.  And not all religion, but just one religion.

Reply #3 Top

one more thought: there may never have been so many brilliant humans in one place at the same time as those who brought america into being.  any country in any generation could count itself extremely fortunate to have just one  jefferson or franklin or washington or madison or monroe or hamilton. we had all six...and more.


when these men and their peers gathered to craft the constitution, they seem to have deliberately excluded any mention of 'god', 'christ', 'bible' or their non-christian analogs--an exclusion that was all the more remarkable considering that almost any formal document of that time was liberally sprinkled with such references.


 

Reply #4 Top

when these men and their peers gathered to craft the constitution, they seem to have deliberately excluded any mention of 'god', 'christ', 'bible' or their non-christian analogs--an exclusion that was all the more remarkable considering that almost any formal document of that time was liberally sprinkled with such references.


Better re-read the documents.  God is in there.  Just not any one God.

Reply #5 Top

And wrong on your last point. The wall exists. I am a Jeffersonian conservative. He said wall, but not 'from'.


the quote i attributed to jefferson are his exact words in a letter responding to a group of baptist ministers who asked for clarification because they were victims of discrimination at the hands of another christian sect. jefferson claimed it to be a 'wall between church and state'.  it's a quite famous document known as the danbury letter; any one who claims to be a jeffersonian anything would do well to study it

Reply #6 Top

Better re-read the documents. God is in there


do tell.  where?

Reply #7 Top

do tell. where?


The preamble.

Reply #8 Top

that the courts are doing today even remotely follows that logic


if you would READ my statement about jefferson, madison and those two court rulings youd see a direct link between all four.  youre totally overlooking facts in favor of your opinion.

Reply #9 Top

The preamble.


really? where?  


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Reply #10 Top

Blessings


Bingo

Reply #11 Top

Secular humanism? Where each morals are no better than another? I beleive that killing red heads is moral, so I cant be convicted right?


and if god tells me personally i can kill redheads? 

human societies existed for thousands if not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years before moses supposedly received the ten commandments.  somehow a few redheads managed to escape.

Reply #12 Top

Also:


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 [George III] 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 benefits 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 and 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 the 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. 


Nuff said.


he wrote that.

Reply #13 Top

and if god tells me personally i can kill redheads? 


THAT is secular humanism.  Can you cite chapter and verse? And where a majority agree with you?  But if that is YOUR belief and you believe in secular humanism, you cannot be prosecuted for it.


Dont confuse whackos with religion.  Both exist, but they are not interchangeable.

Reply #14 Top

Blessings


the blessings of liberty is another way of saying the benefits of liberty.  it's not used in any religious sense.  

Reply #15 Top

the declaration of independence is NOT the constitution nor is it law. 


but you just proved my point about the import of there being no such mention of god in the constitution.  thank you

Reply #16 Top

but you just proved my point about the import of there being no such mention of god in the constitution. thank you


You did not say constitution.  You said official documents.  And both the Declaration and the Federalist papers have been used in the intrepretation of the constition.


So you just proved my point.  As both are 'official documents' according to the SCOTUS.


point, set and Match.

Reply #17 Top

THAT is secular humanism


that's your misunderstanding of what secular humanism is.  it is not secular humanism by any means.   even it if was, that would not be a legal or moral defense.  

what i believe or dont believe isnt important to this discussion.  im merely pointing out some very basic facts about the constitution, statements made by jefferson and madison and how the supreme court has historically used those statements to interpret the first amendment.  

Reply #18 Top

what i believe or dont believe isnt important to this discussion. im merely pointing out some very basic facts about the constitution, statements made by jefferson and madison and how the supreme court has historically used those statements to interpret the first amendment.


KB, just be a man and admit you are defending the indefensible.  You lost on both acounts.  Both Secular humanism and God in our documents.  Sure the SCOTUS can ban the DOI, but do you think we would be better if they did?


Interpretation is fine.  Words are indelible.  SCOTUS is just fallible people.


You challenged I provided.  Admit it and argue another venue.

Reply #19 Top

You did not say constitution. You said official documents.


reread reply#3.  i said consitution.


anything i have notarized is an 'official document'   the constitution is law.  the only justice to proclaim the declaration can provide clear intent for the constitution--and that is the most activist judical position of which im aware--is clarence thomas. 

Reply #21 Top

Words are indelible


exactly.  oh one more thing....speaking of official documents


first treaty of tripoli...presented to the senate by president john adams, may 30, 1796. ratified on june 7, 1796 by a 2/3 majority of the senate present.  from the official document in italics:


(23 senators voted yea: sens Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine , Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy.)


RESOLVED, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein,) That the Senate do advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary


signed into full effect by president john adams june 10, 1796


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 religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Reply #22 Top
*shakes head*

Silly bloggers, don't you know that kingbee always wins?
Reply #23 Top
Reply #22 By: Citizen Texas Wahine - 11/24/2004 3:16:55 PM
*shakes head*

Silly bloggers, don't you know that kingbee always wins?


Only in his dreams and our nightmares
Reply #24 Top

Even Kingbee's comments about Jeffson's letter to the Danbury Babtist Association is taken somewhat out of context.


apparently hugo black was also taking jefferson out of context too?  its much more likely the source your quoting is offering an opinion favorable to its point.  please read the danbury correspondence...not a summary...before suggesting im taking it out of context.


(1947 everson v. board of ed, justice black) "in the words of jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state."

Reply #25 Top

when these men and their peers gathered to craft the constitution, they seem to have deliberately excluded any mention of 'god', 'christ', 'bible' or their non-christian analogs--an exclusion that was all the more remarkable considering that almost any formal document of that time was liberally sprinkled with such references


Any formal document.  So you deny that the DOI and the FP are formal documents? Do we now belong to england?


Dont cut up Bugs bunny.  But I do see you removed your last entry. 


Texas, does that mean I win?