Court of Appeals: Constitution "does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

American Family Association of Michigan ^ | December 21, 2005 | American Family Association of Michigan

[Always Right]

You confound hostility for government authority over religion with distaste for Christians. Those who rely on government advice in matters of religion have no claim whatsoever to the title "Christian."

Actually, your hatred of Christianity is quite obvious. You worship selective quotes by men supporting your legal position. You proclaim people who agree with your legal postion 'real Christians' while you denounce people who disagree with you 'non-Christians' and 'satan-worshipers'. You have called heros like Patrick Henry and George Washington 'satan-worshipers'. You are troll.

[rwfromkansas]

Note that Madison says it was only intended to prohibit a national religion, force observance of that religion, or stop people from exercising their religion freely, regardless of what faith it is.

But, when the govt. took actions such as granting federal govt. funds to build churches on Indian lands and send off missionaries, that obviously was a pretty strong support for Christianity exclusively.

The First Amendment must have had a pretty narrow intent.

I don't support some sort of theocracy. I am a Reformed Christian, and I certainly understand thet sovereignty of Christ over all things. I also recognize that the govt. should not take charge over the church. The founders were wise to reject this. But, I also recognize as Romans says, that the govt. is to be the sword of God, mainly in civil law, but I believe govt. has a role to encourage morality as well. What the founders envisioned was a government that did not discriminate based on religion, nor control it. But, they did envision a govt. that encouraged Christianity's influence on the culture.

[FredFlash]

Why don't you believe it was all about the rights of conscience? Now you are the one running right past what Madison said was its purpose.

[FredFlash]

Show me some evidence that the federal government granted federal funds to build churches on Indian lands and send off missionaries and you better have something more that hogwash about the Kaskaskia Indian Treaty and the Moravian Brotherhood.

[FredFlash]

If the religion clauses are to be interpreted according the provisions found in the Indian Treaties then Madison’s view prevailed over your view by a score of 388 to 1.

[rwfromkansas]

" MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

[rwfromkansas]

Face it, your view was not the view of the Supreme Court until the 20th century.

Give it up. Have a nice day.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:
I recognize as Romans says, that the govt. is to be the sword of God, mainly in civil law, but I believe government has a role to encourage morality as well.


I say:
The Madison-Jefferson-Leland-Backus-Williams doctrine of no civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator was derived in part from: My kingdom is not of this world and Render unto Caesar. The conflict between Romans 13 and Mathew 22:21 was resolved in favor of Christ.


Your view is reasonable and was the prevailing view up to about 1776. It was widely held during the founding era but gradually lost ground until it was overtaken some time between 1776 and 1787. During the days of the Early Republic it ran in second place. Presented below is an excerpt from a sermon that I stumbled onto just today. It is from 1845 by some cool cat named Gilbert Beebe (1800 - 1881) and articulates what I believe was the prevailing view of the times. Beebe's take on the issue is no government supervision or power over what belongs to God, such as matters of faith, conscience and religion.


Things of a civil nature, relating to the natural rights of men, were to be settled by God's own providential appointment, by human legislation; but the things aside from a respect for and obedience to earthly potentates, in natural matters, belonging to God, such as matters of faith, of conscience, of religion, were not things over which the kings of the earth had any supervision or power, and things in which His subjects were not at liberty under any circumstances, to submit to the dictation or legislation of any other than God Himself.


See the whole sermon at http://members.aol.com/twarren20/kingdomchrist.html

[FredFlash]

You wrote:
I believe government has a role to encourage morality as well.


I write:
Tell me what you believe best advances the type of morality necessary for a republican system of government. I will wager a three pence and cup of fine English tea that you and I will agree that it is a system where Christianity can thrive and blossom into a vibrant and vital force and source of morality.


You and I will most likely disagree on the type of system to best achieve that goal. If I have the right understanding, you advocate what was known during the Early Republic as “public leading in religion.”


Your theology is Romans 13 probably because you are Reformed Protestant. Mine is Matthew 22 because I am Methodist. The only way I will win this debate is to convert you from Romans to Matthew and vice versa, if you are going to win.


That most likely is not going to happen. Therefore, we can either resolve the conflict with force and violence or we can acknowledge that God is all-powerful, men are fallible and it is possible that God may dictate one thing to your conscience but another to mine.


I ask you to respect my duty to obey my conscience. But how can I ask you to extend to me that respect, unless I am willing to extend the same to you?


I suggest that we enter into a social contract where both of us agree to respect the others duty to obey his conscience and agree that we include a provision that forbids you to assume authority over my duties to God and I am forbidden likewise. We will call the social contract a constitution.

[FredFlash]

Reynolds v. U. S. (1878) was in the 19th Century. It laid down the definition of religion and the rule that it was not within the cognizance of the government.


Prior to that the Court had never had to resolve a dispute under the religion clauses because the Federal Government did not write prayers and urge the people to say them, require Bible reading, post religious commandments or write and recommend affirmations of belief in one God over the Nation. There were cases where the principles of Total Separation were applied to non religion clause disputes citing the authority of the religion clauses. In other words the clauses were interpreted by the Court but not applied to the clauses. The cases are cited in Engel (1963) if you are interested.



************************************************************



The free exercise of religion right is to exercise your sentiments regarding the duties that you owe to the Creator according to the dictates of your conscience and convictions. You don’t have any right to exercise your sentiments regarding the duties that you owe to the Creator according to the dictates of the government and the conviction of some government stooge.

[rwfromkansas]

You clearly know a lot about this subject. Thanks for the info.

[FredFlash]

Why did you leave out the other half of Madison's explanation - the best part - the part about the right of conscience? Be careful my friend - deceitful Satan Worshipers like David Barton and Justice William Rehnquist leave the best part out. They make a living off of fools who don't care about truth and those who are too lazy or stupid to actually check out their hogwash evidence

[FredFlash]

Patsy Henry was a nut case. Washington refused to let him near his army.

Any public official, even the gallant and noble Washington, becomes nothing but an obnoxious oaf when he steps upon the field of religious opinion without removing the purple robe.

[Always Right]

Patsy Henry was a nut case.

Coming from someone who calls Washington a 'satan-worshiper' that means nothing to anyone. Someone who throws out the rhetoric that you do loses all credibility real fast.

[FredFlash]

I ain't cutting nobody no slack when it comes to God's authority over his religion. Washington was wrong to sign that Proclamation in 1789 and I ain't only one saying it.

The reason Washington never issued another one proves that he saw the light and mended his wicked ways. It came about most likely becase Madison, Jefferson and Saint George Tucker kicked his ass and told him to straighten up and fly right.

How do you explain why Washington didn't issue a recommendation of thanksgiving in each of the next seven years. Did he believe in prayer only once every eight years? Maybe we should celebrate Thanksgiving Day only once every eight years.

I advance the bold proposition that Washington did not change his mind on whether men should give thanks to the Almighty - He only changed his mind regarding who was supposed to tell men what their religious duties were.

[Always Right]

I ain't cutting nobody no slack when it comes to God's authority over his religion.

Giving authority over and acknowledging it are two different things. Nobody wants laws that mandate religion, but you seem to take the extreme position that any acknowledgement is somehow coercion. Besides, coming from someone who comes across as an atheist or at the least extremely legalistic, I don't put a lot of sincerity in your concern about protecting religion. You pretent to want to protect religion, but what you advocate is taking any hint of religion out of the public forum.

You call people 'non-Christian' at the drop of the hat, but nothing indicates you believe in Jesus as the Messiah. You apparently worship at the alter of your legalistic views.

[FredFlash]

You wrote:
Nobody wants laws that mandate religion, but you seem to take the extreme position that any acknowledgement is somehow coercion.

I write:
Please explain for me the difference between an acknowledgment and a mandate and provide examples of what you believe are permissible acknowledgments; and tell me why the government should be forbidden to use the sword yet allowed to use the pen?.

[Always Right]

Please explain for me the difference between an acknowledgment and a mandate and provide examples of what you believe are permissible acknowledgments; and tell me why the government should be forbidden to use the sword yet allowed to use the pen?

A mandate would be a religious test that requires someone to take on oath saying you believe a certain way in order to obtain a government privilege like a job/position or to graduate or to drive. A mandate has some sort of punishment element. An acknowledgment would be to recognize religious holidays like Christmas and Easter and to allow displays like manger scenes and to allow religious prayer or speeches at events such as a graduation. An acknowledgment would have no sort of punishment element attached and no requirement to participate. Just being exposed to it would not constitute a requirement to participate.

Currently, exposure of a majority belief to a minority belief is considered coercive and sometimes banned, but exposure of a minority belief to the majority is not, which is an odd and an extreme interpretation.

[FredFlash]

What about the Pledge and posting of Commandments?

[FredFlash]

What law does not allow religious prayer or speeches at events such as a graduation?