|
|
Post by ken on Nov 11, 2015 6:32:42 GMT -6
As I continue to read, I find that today's "separation of church and state" in today's context is a fallacy.
In 1782, one of the very first acts of Congress was to commission a publishing of the Scriptures in America so that people could have free access to it. This marks the very foundation of the Congress and is in stark contrast to the Supreme Courts decision in the 1960's as they violated almost 200 years of precedent.
#separation, church, state, fallacy
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 11, 2015 6:40:31 GMT -6
"In the formative days of the Republic, the directing influence the bible exercised upon the Fathers of the Nation is conspicuously evident... ...This Book continues to hold its unchallenged place as the most loved, the most quoted, and the most universally read and pondered of all the volumes which our libraries contain... ...We cannot read the history four our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. I suggest a nationwide reading the Holy Scriptures... (1) ...for a renewed and strengthening contact with those eternal truths and majesty principles which have inspired such measure of true greatness as this Nation has achieved."(2)
1) Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Statement on the Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Printing of the English Bible" 1935
2) Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Proclamation - Thanksgiving 1944"
#Separation, Church, State, fallacy, Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 11, 2015 13:50:51 GMT -6
Which church/religion are we talking about in modern America? Of the many, which would you like to be in/out of the public sector?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 11, 2015 17:20:20 GMT -6
As I continue to read, I find that today's "separation of church and state" in today's context is a fallacy. In 1782, one of the very first acts of Congress was to commission a publishing of the Scriptures in America so that people could have free access to it. This marks the very foundation of the Congress and is in stark contrast to the Supreme Courts decision in the 1960's as they violated almost 200 years of precedent. #separation of church and state Hi Ken: I logged on to see what Steve might be up to and lo! An on-topic post.  Separation of church and state is no fallacy. On the contrary, our separation of church and state, properly understood, is a beautiful doctrine that exists to protect the right of religious people in the USA to worship as they please. It bugs me that more people of faith don't appreciate this. First, some definitions, The phrase "separation of church and state" should be defined as shorthand for the guarantees concerning religion of the First Amendment. No Supreme Court opinion has ever stated that all religion must be excised from the affairs of the government. So, folks who argue that the separation of church and state requires (or threatens) the elimination of all vestiges of religion from public affairs are chasing a red herring. Our founder's religious beliefs were complex and varied. This matches modern US citizen's religious beliefs - complex and varied. The Founders obviously valued religious freedom. Also, they knew that religious freedom would be crushed, as it was in England at the time, if the State established a coercive state religion. Thus, to preserve religious freedom, the Founders added two powerful clauses to the Bill of Rights to constrain the State and guarantee a powerful personal right to the people: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
There are volumes of law interpreting these elegant words, but in all cases the key thing is that the people must be free to exercise their religion of choice and that this right is subverted automatically if the State establishes a State religion. Whatever the religious positions of various individual Founders might have been, it is clear as day that they, as a group, respected all religions and desired to protect all religions from government overreach. There are plenty of situations where religion is recognized by government which are not an establishment. One 1947 Supreme Court interpretation of "establishment" is germane here, because it invokes TJ's "separation language: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 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.’” www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1As a practical matter, Google the "Lemon Test" and you can see how courts are supposed to differentiate between establishment and no-harm-no-foul entanglements between government and religion. Some say the Lemon Test is too restrictive, and maybe it is, but as a person of faith, you should be wary of too much government involvement in religion. As Steve hints, your religion, or your interpretation of scripture may not always be the majority interpretation, and that is where the trouble begins when the government gets too involved. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 12, 2015 13:09:31 GMT -6
Jim,
Your post is quite good. And, certainly, Christianity allows for the free choice of worshipping God how one please or, for that matter, not worshipping any god but yourself and not god at all.
My context of "separation of church and state" and the fallacy thereof, is the current position that one cannot worship at all. Current examples are obvious and plentiful. It is more of a coercive "thou shalt not worship at all" instead of "worship however your conscience dictates".
The second reason for my posting is the reality of how much the Bible and Christian beliefs is what prompted the current structure if not also the American Revolution itself. Today's fallacy is that the Bible had nothing to do with it.
It is also my personal belief, through precedent, that establishing the Christian faith as the foundation of the country was promoted as such without the violation of others rights to worship as they pleased (such as muslims). An example of that was the first time someone tried to have a public school start without teaching the Bible. The Supreme Court determined that if someone didn't want the Bible taught in the public school, they could start a private school. Additionally, every State Constitution mentioned the Christian faith and was never found to be contrary to the will of the spirit of the Constitution. There are so many more examples.
It was only in the last decades, perhaps precipitated by the 1947 ruling, that things have changed into "there shalt be no religion, period, in the public arena".
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 12, 2015 23:45:22 GMT -6
Ken,
Has your church been raided, the doors locked, and your parishioners jailed and persecuted? Your claim that one can not worship at all is a joke.
Religion had nothing to do with the American Revolution. It was all about $$$$ - trade, taxation, and who should make the laws governing such things. Religion and god were mentioned during and after the war, but warring factions always bring god into the mix to justify actions. God and religion are tools in the hands of politicians and military commanders.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 13, 2015 7:10:19 GMT -6
Ken, Has your church been raided, the doors locked, and your parishioners jailed and persecuted? Your claim that one can not worship at all is a joke. Religion had nothing to do with the American Revolution. It was all about $$$$ - trade, taxation, and who should make the laws governing such things. Religion and god were mentioned during and after the war, but warring factions always bring god into the mix to justify actions. God and religion are tools in the hands of politicians and military commanders. This is America, Steve. It takes time to turn a huge boat but turning it is. nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/28/video-student-says-texas-teacher-forced-7th-graders-deny-god-real-or-take-failing-grade - this is equal to the shutting down of a place of worship. Freedom has to be fought for or indeed churches will be closed. This is, of course, is just the scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg. I am reminded of what President Andrew Jackson said "It (The Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests".Certainly trade and taxation are part of it but, as the notes were found from one of the Reformers, the Bible is where they questioned the status quo of the "Divine Right of Kings". If the truth of the Bible hadn't opened their eyes of the reality that Kings are no more than a man like everyone else, then who knows what our history would be like. It remains the foundation for revolt. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 13, 2015 7:40:58 GMT -6
Evolution can go back to Anaximander (610-546 BC) who introduced the theory of spontaneous generation. Our fore-fathers were well versed on these theories including survival of the fittest as well as mutability and adaptation of species.
It is said that of all our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine was the most anti-religious of them all. Yet this is a quote from the same:
It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy as accomplishments only, whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them, for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author: When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well-executed statue, or a highly finished painting.... our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talent of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How, then, is it that when we study the works of God in creating, we stop short and do not hinge of God?... The evil that has resulted from the error of schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator Himself, they stop short and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence... But fidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which in cannot account and yet it pretends to demonstration. (emphasis mine)
Thomas Paine, The Political and Miscellaneous Works of Thomas Paine (LONDON: R. CARLILE, 1819)
What words of wisdom!
#separation, church, state, fallacy, Thomas, Paine, quotes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 14, 2015 12:22:28 GMT -6
lol, Ken, that's just philosophical musings.
Divine right was a legal term, nobody really believed it was true, except a king or queen trying hold onto wealth and power. Everyone knew that divine right lasted as long as there was a sword to someone's throat. The American Revolution was all about money and power. "No taxation without representation". Remember the Boston Tea Party, The Stamp Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 16, 2015 7:34:54 GMT -6
lol, Ken, that's just philosophical musings. Divine right was a legal term, nobody really believed it was true, except a king or queen trying hold onto wealth and power. Everyone knew that divine right lasted as long as there was a sword to someone's throat. The American Revolution was all about money and power. "No taxation without representation". Remember the Boston Tea Party, The Stamp Act. Not really, even today there are people who erroneously think that when the Pope speaks, its Gospel. Much more in the days where almost nobody had a Bible to verify what they were saying. It was for that reason that CONGRESS authorized the printing of the Bible. As I make a more in depth study I find that realizing that the King is just a man and not God's representation, that is the foundation for a revolution. "No taxation without representation" - is the catalyst. Remember, like unto God, every property belonged to the King in those days (as a type of a representation of God). I think President Andrew Jackson synthesized it best with his one liner "It (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests.". |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 16, 2015 21:47:49 GMT -6
lol, Ken, that's just philosophical musings. Divine right was a legal term, nobody really believed it was true, except a king or queen trying hold onto wealth and power. Everyone knew that divine right lasted as long as there was a sword to someone's throat. The American Revolution was all about money and power. "No taxation without representation". Remember the Boston Tea Party, The Stamp Act. Not really, even today there are people who erroneously think that when the Pope speaks, its Gospel. Much more in the days where almost nobody had a Bible to verify what they were saying. It was for that reason that CONGRESS authorized the printing of the Bible. As I make a more in depth study I find that realizing that the King is just a man and not God's representation, that is the foundation for a revolution. "No taxation without representation" - is the catalyst. Remember, like unto God, every property belonged to the King in those days (as a type of a representation of God). I think President Andrew Jackson synthesized it best with his one liner "It (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests.". lol, Andrew Jackson owned about 500 slaves during the course of his life. So tell me, what was the driving/dominant force in Jackson's life, money or the Bible? 49% of the members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves. Reconcile that with your research and you Bible foundation claims. Politicians say the darnest things, Ken, just to justify their actions and self importance. All this talk about god and the bible as cornerstone for this nation, can't you see they were invoking divine right, American Style, as god's representatives in a new nation. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 16, 2015 23:37:10 GMT -6
Ken,
Even you invoke divine right with all your claims that the Bible and Christianity are cornerstones for this nation. I'm not falling for that nonsense, I suspect I know a little more history than your average parishioner. If the British were a little wiser back in the 1770's, relaxing commercial restrictions, we'd still be royal subjects today, Bible or no Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 17, 2015 5:34:38 GMT -6
Not really, even today there are people who erroneously think that when the Pope speaks, its Gospel. Much more in the days where almost nobody had a Bible to verify what they were saying. It was for that reason that CONGRESS authorized the printing of the Bible. As I make a more in depth study I find that realizing that the King is just a man and not God's representation, that is the foundation for a revolution. "No taxation without representation" - is the catalyst. Remember, like unto God, every property belonged to the King in those days (as a type of a representation of God). I think President Andrew Jackson synthesized it best with his one liner "It (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests.". lol, Andrew Jackson owned about 500 slaves during the course of his life. So tell me, what was the driving/dominant force in Jackson's life, money or the Bible? 49% of the members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves. Reconcile that with your research and you Bible foundation claims. Politicians say the darnest things, Ken, just to justify their actions and self importance. All this talk about god and the bible as cornerstone for this nation, can't you see they were invoking divine right, American Style, as god's representatives in a new nation. That means 51% of the Constitutional Convention didn't own slaves and eventually was stamped out... why? Colossians - " There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". It is where we find... "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. " The acknowledgment that, as Andrew Jackson said "It (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests." Remember, I am not saying that each individual life exudes the perfectness of God but rather the United States was founded on the premises of the truths in the Bible. Give me time--I have just begun to present this factual case. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Nov 17, 2015 5:57:09 GMT -6
WOW!!! 1854 Congress... "What is an "establishment of religion"? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have test for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without ll these" - Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854) p. 1 It would appear that today is the beginning of secular religion defining what a man must believe. It has ordinances which must be observed and the secular judges administer the rites and penalties for the nonconformist and the secular teachers are those who teach the doctrines. Today, it is no longer the establishment of a national church but now has been relegated to: - An individual student from saying a prayer at a football game, graduation, or any other school event
- An individual student from writing a research paper on a religious tope, drawing religious artwork in an art class, or carrying his personal Bible on school grounds.
- a choir from singing a religious song as part of a school concert
a school from placing a Bible in a classroom library
cadets at military academies from engaging in voluntary prayers over their meals
literally hundreds of similar individual or group activities
Separation of Church and State was never meant to remove the vestiges of faith but to promote the free exercise thereof... something that now is being taken away. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 17, 2015 11:09:20 GMT -6
WOW!!! 1854 Congress... "What is an "establishment of religion"? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have test for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without ll these" - Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854) p. 1 It would appear that today is the beginning of secular religion defining what a man must believe. It has ordinances which must be observed and the secular judges administer the rites and penalties for the nonconformist and the secular teachers are those who teach the doctrines. Today, it is no longer the establishment of a national church but now has been relegated to: - An individual student from saying a prayer at a football game, graduation, or any other school event
- An individual student from writing a research paper on a religious tope, drawing religious artwork in an art class, or carrying his personal Bible on school grounds.
- a choir from singing a religious song as part of a school concert
a school from placing a Bible in a classroom library
cadets at military academies from engaging in voluntary prayers over their meals
literally hundreds of similar individual or group activities
Separation of Church and State was never meant to remove the vestiges of faith but to promote the free exercise thereof... something that now is being taken away. Hi Ken: My kids are few years out of high school, but I know from first hand experience that there was no problem exploring the cultural aspects of religion in public school - writing a history paper on religious topics, creating religious art or singing sacred music in the choir. One of my kids is singing in the top choir at the University of Colorado in uber-PC Boulder and they've had concerts entirely consisting of sacred music. (Most/almost all of the greatest choral pieces of history are religious of course). I don't deny that some administrators overreact now and then, and of course overreactions gets all the press. In my own experience, the lefty Montessori charter school our kids went to for grade school (and we liked a lot) had actual Wiccans visit at Halloween, yet still denied the kids the opportunity to say "Merry Christmas." We just laughed it off as silly but innocuous political correctness. Minor intersections of the cultural aspects of faith and school (religious art and music, so forth), are properly permitted as not being actual establishment events. It is a shame when politically rabid activists file lawsuits over minor religious entanglements, and schools reflexively over-react, but it has not entirely excised the cultural aspects of religion from our schools, not by a long shot. Jim |
|
