Whoah I agree with the vatican!

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (MeanMrMustard @ Aug. 07 2003,7:28)]Many of the founding fathers of this country were in fact not Christian at all, including people like Jefferson who wrote the declaration of independace, Ben Franklin and others.

Quote[/b] (Benjamin Franklin @ letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94)]
"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped."

It must be said that Jefferson was not a Chrisitian in the traditional sense, but he definitely considered himself a Chrisitian and a true follower of Jesus.  He wrote:

Quote[/b] (Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson @ 1801. ME 10:237)]
The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

Also, he wrote regarding his compilation of what we now call the Jefferson Bible:

Quote[/b] (Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thompson @ 1816. ME 14:385)]
A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while theydraw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw.

--

 

[MeanMrMustard]

Those are all compliments of the Christian religion, I didn't say they disliked Christianity. Jefferson followed the teachings of Jesus the same way people follow the teachings of Ghandi or Martin Luther King, and with good reason. He wouldn't be classified as a Christian however, not in today's terms. I've heard him best classified as a deist. Many American intellectuals of the time shared his belief.
Jefferson was not all praise, there are as many criticisms, here are a few examples:

Quote[/b] ]In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Quote[/b] ]Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

Quote[/b] ]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Quote[/b] ]Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

These quotes take up alot of space, and are easily available from any web search so I'll only put up a few. There are plenty more like these out there.

 

[Avesther]

Putting up a bunch of quotes doesn't change anything about how there is no seperation of church and state. I simply threw up some quotes that dispute your so called "Facts."

I just finished doing a rather brief history of Thomas Jefferson. He may not have been what is called a Christian in the traditional sense. He did very much consider himself as such. And at the very least, was a very strong supporter of the Christian faith, missionary work and the work that the church did.

Thus, what is left is that there is still no seperation of church and state in the American constitution.

 

[Avesther]

---WARNING --- LONG POST ---


Thomas Jefferson, the one people credit with "separate church and state."

by his own actions:

Initiated a school program that featured the Bible and Isaac Watts Hymnal as the primary textbooks

 --The Second American Revolution, by John W. Whitehead, David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982, p. 100, Quoting from J.O. Wilson, Public School of Washington, Washington D.C., Columbia Historical Society, 1897, Vol. I, p.5


Wrote the Declaration of Independance with words such as "God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge of the world" and "Divine Providence"

Jeffersons proposed national seal was that of "The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night"

 --Thomas Jefferson, July 3, 1776, in a proposition for a national seal; Journals of the Continental Congress, 1776, Vol. V, p. 530; Charles Francis Adams (son of John Quincy Adams and grandson of John Adams), ed., Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. I, p. 152

Wrote "No power over the freedom of religion---(is) delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

 --Nov. 16, 1798, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Article III; Jonathan Elliot, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 5 Vols. (Washington D.C.; Jonathan Elliot, 1836

Wrote his own epitaph "Here lies buried  Thomas Jefferson  author of the Declaration of Independance  author of the Statutes for Religious Freedom in Virginia  and father of the University of Virginia"

 --Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1826, epitaph inscribed on his tombstone, which he authored himself

He didn't want to be known as a President of the United States, rather he wanted to be known as a "crusader" for religious freedom.

On the Jefferson Memorial, his own words:  “No men shall - - - suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively”

Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C.

On March 4, 1805 in an official government act, as President of the United States, he offered A National Prayer for Peace, ending with the words, “- - - all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen”.

Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805, offered a National Prayer for Peace; The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, eds. Adrienne Koch and William Paden, (NY: Random House, 1944, p. 3410


The “wall of separation between church and state” that Jefferson described was a wall to separate the government from ever interfering with our religious freedoms, not a wall to separate religious expression from our schools, courthouses, and other public places!
---

Fisher Ames, author of the first ammendment:

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

Works of Fisher Ames, Compiled by friends, Boston, 1809, T. B. Wait & Co. p. 134

Obviously somebody forgot to tell him that there should be speration of church from state.  I guess he was not taught the interpretation of todays courts that faith and the Bible have no place in the classrooms.
--

Section 14, Article III of the Northwest Ordinance reads:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

This ordinance was signed into law at the same time the first ammendment was being contemplated.  It seems really nuts that if religion was a truly personal matter and was to be completely seperated from government, that the government would sign into law the requirement for religion

--
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. I pp. 205-216, James Richardson, editor, published: Nat’l Bureau of Literature, NY, 1899




Lots of religion, not much seperation

Actions speak alot louder then words.  Your countries founders did not act like there was seperation of church and state.

 

[Tomahawk]

I just thought I'd lend my two cents. Separation of church and state...hmm. It would seem that original intent is a moot point now. Interpretations of any historical document will change with time. The Bible itself has lost some of its meaning as people choose to adopt those principles they are comfortable with while rejecting or ignoring others. Now if God's divine word is subject to this, how much more so that of man's creation? As for ascribing Christianity to any past or present political leaders, I'd say leave that to God. I would also caution people against using any them as Christian examples given the nature of their work and very often, their actions.

 

[Tomahawk]

Just re-read my post and wanted to clarify something before it is misunderstood. I am not suggesting that the Bible itself has lost any of its inherent meaning, just that some of its meaning is lost by those who read it.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (Tomahawk @ Aug. 08 2003,7:32)]
I just thought I'd lend my two cents. Separation of church and state...hmm. It would seem that original intent is a moot point now. Interpretations of any historical document will change with time.

The only reason why any documents interpretation would change over time is because people would rather it meant something that favoured their position.

Original intent has every to do with interpretation of a document.  The First Ammendment intent,which is often cited as giving rise to the seperation of church and state, was never that of what it has been twisted to today.

If you go right back to the correspondance between the Baptist Association at Danbury, Connecticut and Thomas Jefferson, to determine what the issue was that brought up the idea of seperation of church and state you find that the church was worried about two issues:

1.  That the state would force a single Christian denomination above all others like what happend in England.

2.   That they didn't want Religion to be a right granted by Government, rather it was an inalienable right, granted by God.

Quote[/b] ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 --First Ammendment

There you have the First Ammendment, that specifically says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of [a] religion.  That took care of the first concern.  The second concern was taken care of with:  Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise there of.

The plain language of the First Ammendment makes it clear that todays interpretation of seperation of church from state is completly out of context.  Not what the founding father intended.

What do you mean by moot point?

 

[Tomahawk]

I think you misunderstand me. I suggested the argument is academic because of the very reason you stated in the first line of your post. I don't mean that its original meaning changes or is unimportant, but as time goes by, people choose to interpret things to suit their own ends. Also, by moot point, I mean that the argument/discussion is pointless because of this very fact. <Shrug> I guess I should further confess that my viewpoint is probably tainted by my cynicism (sp?).

 

[kasimir]

I just wanted to comment on a sub-comment a few posts ago .. as someone said. marriage should fall in the responsibility of the church ... agreed...and one of the reasons that the government/legal authority will not be able to stay out of this debate is the legal issues regarding termination of marriages and the matters relating thereto ... since the laws of the country is inextricably bound to the creation and termination of marriage "relationships" there is no way (imho) that governments can stay out of this issue ...

S

 

[Ultima Avatar]

You Sew and Sew becomes You Cry and Cry.
Guys. It doesn't matter what the Vatican says, what the Church says, what the State says...
The End will come just the same, with or without their blessing. But mostly with the State's blessing.
Let me lay it out this way: the American government is setting out a program to spy on America itself, to root out terrorists. America, N. Zealand, Aust., UK, and Canada are all in it: it's called Echelon. You can look it up. They brag about it. It's a security measure of sorts.
You know what? America loves it! Why? Because the almighty government advocates it! Because it's "for our personal safety and wellbeing!"
Why? BEcause ignorance is rampant. And why? Because the Bible sucks to the world! Screw the Bible, and badly, they say! It was probably invented a hunnert years ago by some fraud anyways, they say. It's fake, they say. It's no different than Islam, they say, and look what THEY did to us. Plus, THEY'RE the ones who made this humongous fight with Christians, Jews and Muslims in the first place!
But, lo and behold! Look to Revelation and you see what happens now had been prophesied around two thousand years ago! It unfolds before our very eyes, and lo! The watchmen on the walls wail for the world to listen, as wisdom calls from the city gates, but what do we do? We turn to the whore's steps, we turn to prostitute ourselves apart from God, saying in a big emphatic flick-off: I don't need You, Lord.

Whoa. A preachah born and a preachah bred if I ever heard it!
Also, the Church was very much a part of the State in its founding days...no matter WHAT revisionists claim. Just look at the state charters...God. God. God. God. God. They musta had faith in that God guy for some reason...and that was the founding of America. And why the Ten Commandments in courtrooms? Why? Why not the Five Pillars? Journey to Mecca once in lifetime, pray to Allah, have faith (in what? Never says), and some things else I forget what exactly.
The Church and State should be together. Why? Power equality. The State alone usurps too much power. The Church and State together balance each other out. It is NOT the government's job to teach the kids. That is the family's, or the Church's. It is NOT the government's job to regulate job employment, payments, access to what, info, guns or what. The government is for one purpose: to judge and lead, not to rule and command. And that is exactly what the government does today, shoving the piddly Church aside like so many wusses.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Here, I'm gonna summarize a paper I found (and you all know how well I summarize) from Worldview Academy.

To add on thus, an excerpt from a TJ (Thomas Jefferson) letter regarding his interpretation of the FIrst Amendment, where we actually GET the phrase "separation of church and State":

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State

Now. Two ways to go with this: one, there is a building of a wall to protect the freedom of religion from State tampering, so that America would not become a repeat example of what Europe did.
Secondly, State and Church are not to meld in any form at all, which is the more accepted view of the world. Perhaps it's right. Perhaps it's not.
Now here's something: TJ did NOT assist in the writing of the Constitution...Madison did, mostly, and it was ratified by several others, but TJ most certainly did NOT write out the Constitution, so his opinions (which is what the "separation" phrase is) cannot be taken as solidified evidence of what the Constitutional writers had in mind.
But here's something...nowhere in the First Amendment does it mention: the Church and the Judicial Branch can have nothing to do with each other, or the Church and the Executive Branch shall have nothing to do with the other.
It mentions Congress, the State, as a whole: the State cannot alter, legalize or illegalize any religion, is what Congress states.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Aug. 10 2003,8:34)]Now here's something: TJ did NOT assist in the writing of the Constitution...Madison did, mostly, and it was ratified by several others, but TJ most certainly did NOT write out the Constitution, so his opinions (which is what the "separation" phrase is) cannot be taken as solidified evidence of what the Constitutional writers had in mind.

I have not found any evidence that supports this statement unequivocally.  And history itself shows that this statement is probably in error in that of the 71 motions that he put forth, seconded or spoke out heavily in favour for, he was on the loosing side 40 times. And James Madison himself tried to shake the title.

He wanted congress to have a negative (veto) but didn't get it.  It was this point that caused him to believe that the constitution was critically flawed.  Many historians consider him (Madison) the godfather of the constitution because he was first amongst equals in his aggregate contribution to the US constitution.  On the big issues -- the ones that served as the foundation on which everything else was built -- Madison's handiwork clearly has been preserved in the government you live under today.


And seeing as Thomas Jefferson and Fisher Ames did not leave a book on how to interpret their intent in their writings regarding seperation of church and state, all we are left with is how they acted in light of the consititution and ammendments.

And their lifes work shows that it was never meant to be a purging of God from government, that the wall was to keep God out.

Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Aug. 10 2003,8:34)]To add on thus, an excerpt from a TJ (Thomas Jefferson) letter regarding his interpretation of the FIrst Amendment, where we actually GET the phrase "separation of church and State":

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State

This is only an excerpt of the letter written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 in response to a letter written by Baptist Church at Danbury on October 7, 1801.  You need to read both letters to garner the intent of Thomas Jefferson's letter.  I have already commented on this in a previous post.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

The point is this: Jefferson didn't write it: what he had were his thoughts and opinions, and opinions have erred in the past. Gravely, sometimes. Irrevocably, at others.
Jefferson's interpretation is the one we get it from though. The point of the excerpt was not to divine its origins, but the origin of the phrase he arguably coined IN the letter, which is "separation of Church and State."

Also Jefferson was a deist, and if that is deniable, an outright atheist.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] (Ultima Avatar @ Aug. 10 2003,4:05)]The point is this: Jefferson didn't write it: what he had were his thoughts and opinions, and opinions have erred in the past. Gravely, sometimes. Irrevocably, at others.
Jefferson's interpretation is the one we get it from though. The point of the excerpt was not to divine its origins, but the origin of the phrase he arguably coined IN the letter, which is "separation of Church and State."

Also Jefferson was a deist, and if that is deniable, an outright atheist.

Who wrote it is of no consequence.  I am not an American, I have not been taught in American schools.  The only American history I know of is what I have just been researching for the last 8 hours, all on this one topic.  I suppose I should take your word over all that in 10 seconds flat.

The real issues are:

Is there a stipulation for the seperation of church and state as people say there is today?

The facts are:  NO


Is America a Christian nation?

The fact is:  YES

Here is the facts that I found, and to my knowledge after researching it for the last hour, has never been over turned:

Quote[/b] (U.S. Supreme Court Decision @ 1892)]
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people - - - this is a Christian nation.

From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus - - - (recited) that 'it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,' etc. The first colonial grant - that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 - - - and the grant authorizing him to make statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that 'they be not against the true Christian faith - - -'. The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 - - - commenced the grant in these words: ' - - in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness - - '.

Language of similar import may be found in - - the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: 'Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith - - - a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts - - '.

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ' - - And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union - - there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God - - to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess - - of said Gospel (which) is now practiced amongst us.'

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: '- - no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of - - their religious profession and worship - -.'

Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: '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 - - appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions - - 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.'

We find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law - - not Christianity with an established church - - but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' And in The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: 'The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice - - We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters (other religions).' And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, this Court - - observed: 'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law.'

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic (legal, governmental) utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. - - These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

 --Original Intent, David Barton, 1996, Chap. 4, pp.49-51, Wallbuilder Press, Aledo, TX) (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 1892, 465-470



BTW, I am done with this topic. I am often accused of confusing the issues with the facts. I spend alot of time researching every arguement I make and I carefully document and footnote everything so that people can investigate for themselves my research.

I guess becasue I am not American, I will never be taken seriously in this debate, and as such, I bow out. I am not the loser of this debate, rather I am the winner. Not because I changed anybodies mind but my own. I have spent about 8 hours studying Thomas Jefferson and his impact on American History, and for that I am a better person. My sorrow is that it appears that I am the only one who choose to learn something from it.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Excellent.
And don't feel bad because you're not cursed with the title United States citizen. Not everyone is as lucky as you.
Your input is well-taken, and I had mentioned many, if not all, the colonial charters advocated the God of Christianity and/or Christianity's propagation, somewhere in this massive topic, I believe, or on another where the topic came to such as this. If anyone can come up with "empirical" evidence AGAINST Christianity's basis in the founding of the US...be my guest. I'll gladly deport myself to Red China afterwards.