What DID our Forefathers Say? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

BushCountry ^ | 08/26/03 | Barbara Stock

[Zavien Doombringer]

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." --James Madison

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." -- Samuel Adams

"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint." --Daniel Webster

"Your love of liberty -- your respect for the laws -- your habits of industry -- and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness." --George Washington

"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree." --Thomas Jefferson

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe." Washington continued: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." --George Washington

[mathluv]

bttt

[texgal]

Great post. Anyone who thinks the business with Judge Roy Moore in Alabama is simply about a big stone monumnet just doesn't see the bigger picture. The author sees past the monument to the heart of the matter.

[aruanan]

It forbids the Government from establishing a religion of its own, as England did with the Church of England...and it prohibits governmental interference with the free exercise of practicing the religion of your choosing...or not, if that is what you want.

It forbids the U.S. Congress from passing laws that give preference to a specific church ("establishment of religion"). It's sad to see that the author has had her understanding of the establishment clause already corrupted by the revisionists into turning specific subjects ("Congress" and "establishment of religion") into an action ("establishing a religion") or a general concept ("Government"). That's the first thing the revisionists did in order to evade the letter of the law--they changed the meaning by deliberately misparaphrasing the text and then used that to change public policy.

[samiam1972]

bttt
love this!

[OXENinFLA]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions58.html

Document 58

Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association

1 Jan. 1802

Writings 16:281

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

---

Anyone what to explain that in laymen's terms?

[OXENinFLA]

Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
Thomas Jefferson
(January 1, 1802)

To: Messrs.Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association,
in the State of Connecticut

Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.


Thomas Jefferson

---

Looks like there was more to that letter.

[smith288]

thus building a wall of separation between Church and State

Anyone what to explain that in laymen's terms?

Yea, exactly as the forefathers wrote...no law should give any denomination/religion preference. Thus keeping the federal govt out of religious affairs. I see feds getting into religious affairs that should be resolved inside that state.

Is there a specific law that gives any particular sect special treatment?

[OXENinFLA]

Letter to Thomas Jefferson

Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801.

Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson

[ChefKeith]

The federal govt by Constitutional Law MUST not infringe the freedom of (any) Religion.

[PleaseNoMore]

What I want to know is WHERE WAS A LAW ESTABLISHED in the case of the monument???? Yes, I "yelled", not at you, because NO ONE has answered this yet.

[Zavien Doombringer]

But in the incedent in Alabama, the Supreme Court legislated law prohiting the "free excersize there of".

The Alabama Supreme Court cannot legislate law, nor can the SCOTUS! Congress can only make laws!

[PleaseNoMore]

PREFERRING to and ESTABLISHING are two entirely different things. Any person can read Webster's and see that.

[PleaseNoMore]

Not a law per se but a preference was given earlier by former Justices.

In 1892 our Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." The Supreme Court studied this for 10 years before writing this unanimous decision which clearly states that we are not a pluralistic, but we are a Christian nation.

In 1931, in the case of United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 the court said, "We are a Christian people...according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."

In 1952 the Supreme Court, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 307 313 stated: "We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion."

In 1963 the Supreme Court, in the case of School District of Abington Township v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,212,225 pp.21, 71, records: "The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

The latter is just what is happening to America.

[Hostage]

Barbara Stock is a 53 year old RN from Michigan fairly new to political writing. Mother, Grandmother, Proud Conservative Republican. She welcomes comments at: dickens 50@att.net website: Republican and Proud.

Barbara, as a newcomer to political writing you're doing well. Keep it up.

[smith288]

Poor choice of words. Establishing/Preference meant making laws that give one religion more credence than another. That was my basis.

[Incorrigible]

Albert Einstein, an avowed atheist, had several debates with Bishop Sheen, a well known Bishop of that time. After several debates with Bishop Sheen, Albert converted to the Catholic Church shortly before his death.

I searched and searched but found no evidence of the above.  Much of what I found centered around discussions with Bishop Sheen on the theory of relativity.

In one result, I saw that Cardinal O'Conner, then in Boston, wrote of his concern that relativity would be taken beyond science and implemented with respect to morals.  Very prescient!

 

[PleaseNoMore]

You have failed to provide evidence of any laws passed that promote one religion over another in this particular case. Where is it illegal for, say the members of a legislative branch, to prefer the Judeo Christian tenents over the Islamic tenents? That is not illegal or unconstitutional. For these same members to pass legislation requiring one to concede to the tenents of either, thus ESTABLISHING a particular religion, would be illegal and unconstitutional.

As I posted before, from previous cases, Justices affirmed that this nation was indeed established upon the Judeo Christian religion. Preference was given but laws were not established.

Early in our history the Justices were strict constitutionalists. Today they tend through their decisions to be molders of culture, makers of law in contrast to the original intention of our founders who set up the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. They may be taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions.

In the recent opinion by the court it was affirmed that Roy Moore did have the discretion over what decorations adorned the building housing his court.

Whether the present generation likes it or not, our principles of justice, originally, were primarily based on the Ten Commandments. Merely taking down Ten Commandments monuments will not obliterate that historical fact. Acknowledging that fact is simply acknowledging truth. And denying that history is simply another way of denying truth or wishing it would go away--another way of trying to "re-write" history.

The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin.

This post is a compilation of my previous posts on another thread.