Posted on 08/26/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Amendment10
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
1st Amendment: 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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
>>>Can you give me some good examples of what you believe were invocations "of Christianity in ceremonies, holidays, and religious practices within the seat of the federal government?"<<<
There were a some listed in this thread, for example Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789, the congressional practice of holding prayer at the beginning of each day, and the church services that occurred in the congress during the Jefferson administration. Do a google search.
>>>Are you saying that Ellsworth's statement invoked Christianity in a ceremony, holiday, or religious practice within the seat of the federal government? If so, what was the ceremony, holiday or religious practice?<<<
No. I am saying that Ellsworth would not have condemned such practices, nor would few (if any) of the other founders. Rather, he would have encouraged them.
>>>I thought the statement was made in a essay Ellsworth wrote, under a false name, which was printed in some newspapers.<<<
I believe that to be the case. I originally read the particular letter by Ellsworth containing that statement in Britannica's Annals of America. It was explained by the editors that Ellsworth's constitutents were not very happy with the "religious test" clause, thus his letter.
The Founders were wise to make the Constitution amendable. However, how often does it have to be said that enemies of the Constitution wrongly push the idea that judges somehow have a license to keep the Constitution "up to date" by means of unlawfully legislating "modern" interpretations of the Constitution from the bench as opposed to the people properly amending the Constitution by means of their Article V powers?
The bottom line is beware of any discussion about the 1st A., such as the one that this post is interrupting, that fails to relate, in some way, the honest interpretation of the 1st A. with the honest interpretations of the 10th and 14th Amendments, particularly where the religious aspects of these amendments are concerned.
>>>I don't see any mention of Christ or Christianity in Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789. Would you please point out what you believe to be an invocation of Christianity in the 1789 Proclamation?<<<
They were all Christians, and there was never any doubt to which God Washington was referring ("with slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles." -- G.W.'s Farewell Address).
The proclamation actually originated in the House of Representatives, and was presented to the president by a committee that included Roger Sherman. After the proclamation, the day was widely celebrated throughout the nation, in both churches and capitals.
>>>Am I to understand that you read the words "no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the First Amendment to mean "no law respecting an establishment of 'support [for] one Christian denomination over another?'" If so, please tell me why you believe the lawmakers intended the word "religion" in the First Amendment to signify "support [for] one Christian denomination over another?"<<<
I already have.
>>>The resolutions to elect Chaplains said nothing about the Chaplains "performing Christian prayer for...Congress." The law that established the Chaplains salary "at a rate of $500 per annum" said nothing about the Chaplains "performing Christian prayer for...Congress" The House and Senate Journals contain no record of the Chaplains to Congress ever "performing Christian prayer" for the House or Senate of the First U. S. Congress.<<<
They were all Christians. You do have an agenda?
>>>Please tell me if you read those comments by Joe Story to support the "non preferential support of Christianity" interpretation of the First Amendment, which holds that, "The purpose of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment was...to ensure that the federal government did not support one Christian denomination over another?" If so, please tell me why?<<<
Quit cherry-picking. Read all his statements on religion. What is your agenda, anyway?
>>>The statements presented below suggest that Story, like James Madison, read the Constitution to exempt religion from the cognizance and authority of the civil magistrate.<<<
And you completely ignored this statement:
"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, . . . did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty."
Yet you have shown nothing but suspicion. What is your agenda, anyway?
>>>Why did you chop off Story's comments about Rhode Island not supporting Christianity? How does that square with your claim to objectivity?<<<
Are you referring to the part where he mocked Rhode Island, stating, "with the execption of Rhode Island (if indeed, that state be an execption)"? LOL.
What is your agenda? Are you one of the "Separation of Church and State" crowd?
>>>I would love to read the accounts of the celebrations that took place throughout the nation. Will your post some of the accounts here, or perhaps some links or citations to the accounts of the celebrations? I am a bit of a history nut and very interested in these historical accounts.<<<
Do a google.
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.