Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."
The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."
And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.
After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And I was factually wrong. However, I side with Jefferson and Madison in viewing Virginia's constitution as correct. You still haven't cited any contemporary constitutions that proclaim states as being Christian. Do they exist?
You do realize that some original state's constitutions required that representatives were regular attending Christians, don't you?
You do realize that the US Constitution [Art. VI] required that "no religious test" be required for such State offices, don't you?
I don't know.
Vermont's state Constitution says that "every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe Sabbath or Lord's Day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which, to them, will seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God." - LINK
Yes I know I'm giving you and your "ilk" more ideas about elements of Christianity that you can purge from our nation, but that's okay, because I'm not afraid of you.
The first constitution to prohibit religious tests was the United States Constitution written in 1787.(6)
Article VI of the Constitution guarantees that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" reflecting the growing movement in America towards religious freedom and also encouraging many states to end religious tests. After the U.S. Constitution came a shift in state constitutions as Georgia (1789), Delaware (1792), Vermont (1793), and Tennessee (1796) expressly forbade religious tests, and Kentucky (1792) did not mention them. Of the other two states to change constitutions in this period, Pennsylvania (1790) extended its religious test to allow Jews as well as Christians to hold office while South Carolina (1790) was the only state to continue a religious test unaltered.(7)
Some states prohibited members of the clergy from running for office, serving as an elected official or taking any role in the civil government. When the Constitution was adopted; Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New York, Delaware, and South Carolina had such restrictions. Gradually throughout the 1800s such restrictions were removed in most states that still had them. Finally in 1961 and again in 1978 the U S Supreme Court struck such restrictions in Maryland and Tennessee as being unconstitutional.
The use of the word "establishment" in the First Amendment is unique to constitutions of this period. No state constitution used this particular term, preferring to make specific provisions which prohibited tax monies for churches, discrimination against minority sects, and other measures which might establish a church. The use of the vague term in the Bill of Rights indicates the belief that the national government had no power in these specific areas, so that a general prohibition towards matters of religion was sufficient. In this sense, the two religion clauses, taken together, were meant to incorporate the measures in state constitutions, as well as placing further limitations on Congressional power.
The treatment of religion in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is notably different from the provisions in state constitutions; not only are the national clauses noticeably shorter in both number and length, but the completeness of their prohibitions is unprecedented--no religious tests, no establishments, no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In all state constitutions there are some limits placed on these religious liberties. But the national government under the U.S. Constitution is prevented by clear and bold language from any power to control religion. Even the Preamble lacks the common reference to God which is even found in most current state constitutions.
This study of state constitutions in the founding period reveals both a wide variety of provisions concerning religion and a quick turnover of these clauses when constitutions were modified. Two important facts can be clearly discerned: (A) that the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were a significant advancement of religious liberty over state constitution of the time; and (B) that without significant exception, the numerous changes in state constitutions served to expand, rather than restrict, religious liberty. These early constitutions show that the religion clauses of the First Amendment were only; part of a larger trend towards religious liberty and disestablishment which was ongoing in every state and eventually led to the end of direct tax support for religion in America.(8)
III
It is important to keep in mind that disestablishment was a process. Many times people forget that, and they point to this event or that event and say, "See, this shows the founders didn't mean to separate church and state because they did this or that."
Writing a clause or provision into a constitution, or passing statutes does not automatically bring about change. Humans are creatures of habit and thus tend to continue to do things in the same ways. Disestablishment, the separation of church and state producing religious freedom, would not take place over night. As already demonstrated here, it was a process, one that began on the state level in 1776, and moved forward over a period of time. That process still takes place today.
The events on the state level influenced what took place on the national level, which in turn helped reinforce and further influence what was taking place on the state level.
Moving into the 1800s and continuing on into this century; battles were, at times, fought in the state courts. Between 1800 and 1920 there were 87 recorded Sabbath closing law cases, 112 recorded church property disputes, 18 public school prayer and bible reading cases, 15 cases involving public aid to sectarian school, and 22 reported blasphemy cases. (9)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
There you go again, spreading fear. The government is what is being limited here, not the people. You want power for the government. While these reference to Christianity in no way establishes that religion in those states, are you in favor of laws that force people not to work on the lord's day? Do you think we shouldn't be able to by alcohol on Sunday? How about at all?
I thought the government was the people. I don't think those references do establish religion. That's why there is abolutely nothing wrong with them. You are tilting at windmills.
How can the government be of the people if it demands that they all believe in a particular dogma, or if it claims to give preference to Christianity when not all of them believe? It can't. It then becomes a tool for evangelism.
If I had to choose between a government that forced a Sabbath on all people or one that made decisions based on bigotry toward Muslims, I go with door number one.
It doesn't.
or if it claims to give preference to Christianity
If it does so, then it is because the people's elected representatives have passed such a law. That is government by the people.
You do realize that some original state's constitutions required that representatives were regular attending Christians, don't you?
You do realize that the US Constitution [Art. VI] required that "no religious test" be required for such State offices, don't you?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Good, apparently you do realize that State officials were included in the 'religious test' portion of Article VI.
Thanks.
Someone who isnt religious, cant explain religion, it comes down to that.
You do realize that some original state's constitutions required that representatives were regular attending Christians, don't you?
You do realize that the US Constitution [Art. VI] required that "no religious test" be required for such State offices, don't you?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Good, apparently you do realize that State officials were included in the 'religious test' portion of Article VI.
Thanks.
Didn't you read what i posted above ?
Article VI of the Constitution guarantees that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" reflecting the growing movement in America towards religious freedom and also encouraging many states to end religious tests. After the U.S. Constitution came a shift in state constitutions as Georgia (1789), Delaware (1792), Vermont (1793), and Tennessee (1796) expressly forbade religious tests, and Kentucky (1792) did not mention them. Of the other two states to change constitutions in this period, Pennsylvania (1790) extended its religious test to allow Jews as well as Christians to hold office while South Carolina (1790) was the only state to continue a religious test unaltered.(7)
Risk wrote:
How can the government be of the people if it demands that they all believe in a particular dogma or if it claims to give preference to Christianity.
_____________________________________
Tailgunner Joe wrote:
If it does so, then it is because the people's elected representatives have passed such a law. That is government by the people.
In other words, you're willing to compromise our religious freedom out of fear. Why should we have to concede an inch to fear? Why aren't we demanding that our freedoms be defended, instead of offering up cheap compromises, sacrifices to the golden calf of security in exchange for freedom?
We are not required to give up our freedom or our liberty. That choice is being urged on us by timid people who aren't able to stand up for what they believe.
So you're saying that the tyranny of the majority wins here, which is exactly what we're fighting when we resist the inanity of the ACLU. If "most people" believe in Christ, then everyone gets to have his legal disposition justified in terms of Christian (whatever the current sect may be) law?
This is absurd, it's far from democratic, and it is by no means fully representative.
Governments cannot be representative and choose the right religion for its constituents.
But while we're arguing this, millions of Islamic and Hindu people are slated to immigrate to America. Billions of dollars are being funneled into universities to teach our young people that there is no reality and morals are never absolute, and Anglo-Saxon culture as manifested in America's republican form of government is by far not the best form of civilization. We're seeing millions of illegal immigrants arriving each decade, and our industries are being outsourced, offshored, and replaced.
You are attacking the symptom of the problem rather than the cause.
" -- but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. -- "
Offices including:
"--- The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "
Apparently you do not accept that State officials were included in the 'religious test' portion of Article VI.
Why is that?
I don't understand your point. We need to hold our elected and appointed officials to higher standards. We need to have higher standards ourselves. I don't think people on the far religious right are offering America any of those things. If the left and the right continue to polarize, yes, we could miss the opportunity we have right in front of us just to uphold our current laws and end the cultural fragmentation we see happening. I blame rapid modernization, excessive non-Christian immigration, and French-inspired cultural relativism that we've imposed on ourselves for the current trouble. This is a cultural rather than legal problem.
If you think your religious freedom is protected by bigotry toward muslims, you don't have any religious freedom. You are a slave to fear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.