spunket,
It seems that the "activist judges" of the late 20th century and since, have succeeded in convincing conservatives that there really is a "separation of church and state". Revisionism has been largely successful.
You have a conviction concerning the 2nd and rightfully so, but activist judges don't have to worry about the 2nd if they continue in their success in subverting the 1st. They have succeeded in convincing most that the 1st means exactly the opposite of our Founder's intent.
Below are
some quotes of our Founders, does it sound to you as though they believed that religion should be separate from our government and institutions?
Read a good article on
"Separation of Church and State"
______________________
Fisher Ames
Framer of the First Amendment
Our liberty depends on our
education, our laws, and habits . . .
it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.
(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)
_______________________
James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution
[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our
courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)
_______________________
Jedediah Morse
Patriot and "Father of American Geography"
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown,
our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.
(Source: Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.)
________________________
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues,
which constitute the soul of republicanism.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)
By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and
government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)
__________________________
Daniel Webster
Early American Jurist and Senator
[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and
recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.
(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492. From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852.)
___________________________
James Wilson
Signer of the Constitution
Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two
sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)
"They have succeeded in convincing most that the 1st means exactly the opposite of our Founder's intent. " I'm afraid not. The intent of the founders is contained in the documents they prepared, signed and became law. What you posted was their personal thoughts, which are not law.
You need to learn and understand that God is not in charge, this is not His kingdom and that men are in charge. You need to know and understand that the only moral way to interact with other men is rationally. All rights and the morals that are intended to protect those rights must have a rational foundation. The foundation is the purpose, because the very invention of rights and morals requires a purpose and that purpose is that all men enjoy their life and the individual sovereignty of will that is the essence of that life. There's no need, or logical reason to refer to God whatsoever.
Notice that God gave no physical clue whatsoever that He exists. That's the underlying contention of this thread. There are those that acknowledge that and others that fail to. Besides those that can't grasp the science, there are those that simply refuse to accept it regardless. They do that, because their claims and false doctrines are illogical and won't stand on their own rationally. They need to "prove" that God exists, by selectively attacking rational thought and science. God Himself gave no such sign other than His temporary presence as another man, His claim and the sign of Jonah. Matthew 12:39, He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Notice the word none there, and the uniquely singular exception. It means, there will be no sign given in nature, and that includes the nonsense of ID.
That man was entirely rational, yet many of those that claim to know Him are still wallowing in the irrational depths that existed before He came to hold class. In Gen 3 He said man was to live by His own hands and in Matt 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." That means to use the rational faculties that are equal to God's, as per Gen 1, to live as free individuals and protect that gift that was given from the beginning.
You see, God is a rational agent and so too are men. They were created in the image and likeness of God, as per Gen 1 and John 10:33-36, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[Psalm 82:6]? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?.
You can't claim man is incapable of doing this either, because of some fall, or imperfection. The above passages hold and the claims of the Council of Orange regarding the existence of original sin are wrong. Ezekiel 18, the failure of the Jews to ever note such a thing and John 9 prove that. So if God had His reasons for rights, moral codes, whatever, then man can come up with the same without referring to God. Notice, God did it w/o ever referring to another being. If He can do it, so can all y'all. There's no justifiable reason to stagnate in ignorance.
This is my religion, it's non-axiomatic, because it's based on what God Himself said and I believe in science and the results of the scientific method. I expect to be able to freely exercise my religion, I don't want my kids taught another and I want them to learn science. I don't want them taught arbitrary nonscientific rubbish invented, because of someone else's axiomatic religious motivations.