terpfan1980 terpfan1980

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

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.
14,866 views 61 replies
Reply #26 Top

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


sheeeeeit.  my only hope is eventually the law of averages hasta kick in.  ive lost 30000 in a row and im due.

Reply #28 Top

Sorry Kb, just too many entries since yours.  I see where you have not withdrawn it.  Too bad as my last quote clearly shows.


And for the record, the Constitition was not notarized by your standards either.


You lost!  Just admit it and move on.  We all lose on occassion!

Reply #29 Top
sheeeeeit. my only hope is eventually the law of averages hasta kick in. ive lost 30000 in a row and im due.


Well, you are a masterdebater!
Reply #30 Top

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


i havent removed a damn thing.  and i was CONTRASTING  all other formal documents of the time AGAINST the constituion to demonstrate MY point.   jeeez  youre trying to misunderstand or what?

Reply #31 Top
terpfan???  it's exactly what i said he said.  whether or not he was giving secret code messages is a matter of opinion. 
Reply #32 Top

i havent removed a damn thing. and i was CONTRASTING all other formal documents of the time AGAINST the constituion to demonstrate MY point. jeeez youre trying to misunderstand or what?


KB, I already appologized, but figure you are trying to keep up like me, so I take no offense.


And tex, I am soooo glad you but the de in that statement!  !

Reply #33 Top

And for the record, the Constitition was not notarized by your standards either


no....it was ratified and made law...unlike the declaration.  official documents arent laws but laws are official.  go figure

Reply #34 Top

Well, you are a masterdebater!


and a proponent of self-sex marriages.  no no-stroke zones in a free iraq!

Reply #35 Top
Some more great reading.

From here: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0183_Separation_of_Church.html

The terminology that the Court used, that of a "wall of separation" between church and state was not even taken from what the Founding Fathers believed, but rather, was taken from an obscure speech given by Thomas Jefferson and was then twisted out of context.

Jefferson gave a speech to a Baptist association during his Presidency. Because he wanted to establish common ground with them in his speech, he borrowed a phrase from one of their theologians to use in his speech. The context in which he used the phrase: "wall of separation" was to reassure them that the national government would not establish a national government supported church (denomination) to be superior to all other denominations. The "wall of separation" phrase was meant as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering (see Barton, pp. 41-42 and Eidsmoe, p. 243).

Concerning the separation of church and state, here are the opinions of the Founding Fathers, of their contemporary statesmen, of later leaders, statesmen and Presidents, of later Congresses, and later Supreme Courts (before the current Supreme Court):

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison.15

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals: therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris.16

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams.17

"Republican government loses half its value where the moral and social duties are ... negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is work of far more importance to the character and happiness of our citizens than any other improvements in our system of education." Noah Webster.18

"... True religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington.19

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.20

"... The cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness ... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric." Daniel Webster.21

"... The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality...." United States Supreme Court, 1892.22

"... Offenses against religion and morality ... strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties ... this [First Amendment] declaration ... never meant to withdraw religion ... and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law ..." Supreme Court, 1811.23

"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.24

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington.25

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country." President Calvin Coolidge.26

"Moral habits ... cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits ... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." Daniel Webster.27

"The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith - the Bible. United States Supreme Court, 1844.28

"... What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that it cannot be appealed to, and ... what would be good morals The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of ... immorality." Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1846.29

"... For whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government ... because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order." Supreme Court of New York, 1811.30

"... Religion ... must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests ... In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity ... the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions." Senate Judiciary Committee, 1853.31

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles off the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." Horace Greely.32

"... But for [the Bible] we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare ... are to be found portrayed in it." Abraham Lincoln.33

Here is one final quote from one of our modern, most well respected Presidents:

"The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a ... government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!" President Harry S Truman.34

Don't be misled. Look at American history for yourself, instead of just taking someone else's word for it. The people teaching you this stuff don't want you to go to the sources of American history, the original documents, they only want you too read what has been said about it recently. So be radical, read the Constitution for yourself, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, and all of the other documents important in American history. When we quit reading these things for ourselves, we become no better than cows to be herded around, led by the nose, and then indiscriminately slaughtered.

1 Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 18 (1947).
2 Engel v. Vitale; 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
3. Abington v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
4 Massachusetts Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden; 267 N.E. 2d 226, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 849 (1971).
5 Reed v. van Hoven, 237 F. Supp. 48 (1965).
6 Stein v. Oshinsky; 348 F. 2d 299, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 957 (1965).
7 Collins v. Chandler Unified School District; 644 F. 2d 759, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863 (1981).
8 State Board of Education v. Board of Netcong; 270 A. 2d 412, 57 N.J. 172, 108 N.J. Super 564, 262 A. 2d 21 (1970).
9 Stone v. Graham; 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
10 Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District; 483 F. Supp. 272 (1980).
11 Lanner v. Wimmer; 622 F. 2d 1349 (1981).
12 John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Baker Book House, Michigan, 1987) p.406.
13 IFA Newsletter, February 1989, "Fifth Grader Sues for Right to Read Bible."
14 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder Press, Aledo, Texas, 1989) pp.147,148.
15. Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians (Plymouth Rock Foundation, NH,1984) p.361
16. Eidsmoe, p.188.
17. Tim LaHaye, Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., Brentwood TN., 1987) p.196.
18 Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 (FACE, San Francisco, CA. 1967) p.10.
19 Eidsmoe, p.124.
20 LaHaye, p.194, 196; Eidsmoe. pp. 272-273. Quoted from The Works of John Adams.
21 Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, Philadelphia, 1986) p.21.
22 Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 143 U.S. 469 (1892).
23 People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 546 (1811).
24 Verna M. Hall and Rosalie J. Slater, The Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America (Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, 1983) p.38.
25 Dr. Sterling Lacy, Valley of Decision (Dayspring Productions, Texarkana, TX) p.3
26 Steve C. Dawson, God's Providence in America's History (Steve C. Dawson, Rancho Cordova, CA) p.12:3.
27 Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (FACE) p.247.
28 Vidal v. Girard's Executors; 43 U.S. 153 (1844).
29 City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin; 2 Strob. 520 (1846).
30 People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 546 (1811).
31 B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (George W. Childs, Philadelphia, 1864) p.318-329.
32 Lacy, p.8.
33 Clarence E. MacCartney, Lincoln and the Bible (Abington-Cokesbury Press, New York, 1949) p.35.
34 Dawson, p.13-1.


(I included all of the footnotes so that the various sources might be researched and read through).
Reply #36 Top
no....it was ratified and made law...unlike the declaration. official documents arent laws but laws are official. go figure


You said Notaraized. It never was. And you did not say that at the beginning and you did not say "only" the Constitution.

you said official documents and as the SCOTUS as used all that I quoted as 'Official" documents, you lost.

Now if you want to change that to only read "the Constitution" and then re-evalutate all SCOTUS decision just in that light, ok, we can debate that as well.

For now, you lost. And Tex is a stinker!
Reply #37 Top

but rather, was taken from an obscure speech given by Thomas Jefferson and was then twisted out of context.


you know it wasnt a speech...it was a letter.  how credible can the rest of that article be if it gets the basic fact wrong?  (and if this is gonna turn into a war of who can find the most articles by advocacy groups to paste in instead of actually thinking and responding, im outta here)

Reply #38 Top

You said Notaraized. It never was.


no...you need to read more carefully.   reply #19   i was explaining that i could have any document notarized and it would be an 'official document'   official what kinda document?  obviously 'official document'  doesnt mean much.


the constitution isnt an official document.  it is law. 

Reply #39 Top
by the way, the treaty of tripoli, having been sent by president adams to the senate for advice and consent and duly ratified and signed is an official document with the power of law.  it clearly says the united states is not a christian nation. 
Reply #40 Top
Reply #31 By: Citizen kingbee - 11/24/2004 3:27:15 PM
terpfan??? it's exactly what i said he said. whether or not he was giving secret code messages is a matter of opinion.


Put into context, and then try looking at the meaning.

You are looking at one tiny snippet and trying to say it means one thing, when looked at from the bigger angle it clearly means something that does not agree with your point.

There's a ton of great reading out there, including one of the items quoted above:

"The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith - the Bible. United States Supreme Court, 1844. see source number 28 from list above


Better still, from the same site referenced above, there were these great words:

The Courts started this decidedly un-American and subversive behavior with the Everson decision in 1947. The actions that the Court took at that time began to reverse the long standing opinions of the Court for the 150 years preceding 1947, and these recent decisions were without legal precedent, a definite taboo in the legal profession at that time.

"Why did the Court not include a precedent? The answer is simple: there were no previous cases to support its decision in this case! The Court had refused to acknowledge the existence of opinions by the Founders, Congress, previous Courts, and others, because those opinions conflicted with the position the Court now assumed. This ruling was simply a declaration of the Court's new policy, revealing the way it would now interpret the First Amendment.



These are the issues that have driven many folks (like myself) crazy about our court system. Courts where judges have reached for reasons to justify decisions that should never have been made, and can't be justified without distorting our laws.

Unfortunately, there are many liberals (most especially the ACLU) out there keeping these distortions from being corrected by using (abusing more like it) our court system, and by supporting like minded representatives for Governmental positions so that these "advances" in liberty won't be taken away (even though many would say these aren't advances at all, and are the complete antithesis of that).

People have screamed about the Patriot Act and it's infringements on civil rights and civil liberties, but yet no one complains about the loss of the right to practice the faiths that we are guaranteed the right to be able to practice. What a twisted world and time we live in.
Reply #41 Top

no...you need to read more carefully. reply #19 i was explaining that i could have any document notarized and it would be an 'official document' official what kinda document? obviously 'official document' doesnt mean much.


You said (trying to CYA) that anything you notarized!  I cry fowl.  You will not notarize anything that does not support your view.  But that is irrelevant to the discusion at hand.

Reply #42 Top

the constitution isnt an official document. it is law.


Taht is a contradiction.  The Constitution IS an Official Document.  So is the DOI, and all other papers used by the SCOTUS.


Really KB, you are just weaseling yourself deeper and deeper in to a hole.  just give it up.  We all make mistakes!  It is not fatal!  It will not change the current law of the land.  Or anyone's mind about it (well maybe some college student that is still trying to form an opinion).

Reply #43 Top

by the way, the treaty of tripoli, having been sent by president adams to the senate for advice and consent and duly ratified and signed is an official document with the power of law. it clearly says the united states is not a christian nation.


Good catch!  But irrelevant to the debate at hand (and there you go with another Mass liberal - after Kerry and Dukakis, haven't you learned you lesson?).


But please either post it or provide a link.  I am actually unfamaliar with the document and would like to read it. (and that is the truth and not sarcasm TB4J).

Reply #44 Top

The Courts started this decidedly un-American and subversive behavior with the Everson decision in 1947. The actions that the Court took at that time began to reverse the long standing opinions of the Court for the 150 years preceding 1947


thats factually incorrect.  please see reynolds vs us  (1879) which relied on the same interpretation of jeffersons's statment in the danbury letter noting it: "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the  amendment"

Reply #45 Top

But please either post it or provide a link. I am actually unfamaliar with the document and would like to read it. (and that is the truth and not sarcasm TB4J).


hahahaha  i did earlier  see reply#21 this thread. 

Reply #46 Top

thats factually incorrect. please see reynolds vs us (1879) which relied on the same interpretation of jeffersons's statment in the danbury letter noting it: "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment"


Excellant!  So that means that something other than the constitution is 'authoratative'?  That kidn of contradicts your previous statements tho.


Do you now deny those statemements?


just curious.

Reply #47 Top

hahahaha i did earlier see reply#21 this thread.


So you did, and I will accept that as the actual document for now.  however it does not butress your arguement. Can you provide me with the link so I can read it?  Since you quoted it, I figure you have the link.  yes, (Ok TB4J) I can google it, but I would like to read yours.


But thank you!  Nice to have a nice debate for a change.

Reply #48 Top

Can you provide me with the link so I can read it?


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm


for backround info and ratification details youll need to follow the notes link.  

Reply #49 Top
gotta split and getta couple hours of sleep.  sorry.  ill bee back about 6-7 pm pst unless someone wakes me up before then.
Reply #50 Top

may be accepted almost as an authoritative


cmon doc...accepted as and accepted almost as are two different things