Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rwfromkansas
Please point out what particular part of Madison's explanation of a proposed amendment that I am guilty of running past; but first I beg you to examine the entire sum of his explanation in proper context; because David Barton, D. James Kennedy and other Satan Worshipers always leave out Madison's statement that the purpose of the proposal was to prohibit "LAWS OF SUCH A NATURE AS MIGHT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE."

Do you know what Madison's concept of the right of conscience was?

Presented below is the entire speech that I believe you are referring.

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. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them TO MAKE LAWS OF SUCH A NATURE AS MIGHT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
219 posted on 01/15/2006 9:46:17 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]


To: FredFlash

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.


222 posted on 01/15/2006 11:20:55 AM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson