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

To: FredFlash

Look, I can tell we aren't going to agree. You run right past Madison's own explanation of the First Amendment in the Annals of Congress so you can have your own view that it was intended to prohibit all sorts of religious expression. I understand you hate Christians. Good day.


218 posted on 01/14/2006 10:41:59 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


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: rwfromkansas
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."

That great honor is reserved for those who acknowledge the exclusive authority of Christ over their duties to the great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all that is good.

No man can serve two masters. If you believe in "One Nation Under God" or even consider it, upon the advice or urging of the government - you reject the authority of Christ.

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

LET US LEAVE PRAYER TO BE PROMPTED BY THE DEVOTION OF THE HEART, AND NOT THE BIDDING OF THE STATE.*

* Source of Information: Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1832 objecting to the proposal that Congress ask President Andrew Jackson to issue a Religious Proclamation recommending prayer and fasting because of the Asiatic Scourge.

The House chose to follow Verplanck's wise advice and refused to ask the President to recommend prayer and fasting. Jackson had previously made it publicly known that any member of Congress that brought him such a foolish request would get his sorry butt kicked back to the Temple of Satan where the idea must have originated. Andy Jackson believed in the Total Separation of Religion and Government and for staying true to the pure, sacred, just and truly Christian principle of no civil authority over out duties to God, even in the face of the Scourge, he is hereby nominated to the American Religious Liberty Hall of Fame.

220 posted on 01/15/2006 10:11:43 AM PST by FredFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | 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