THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION

To: Looking for Diogenes

I wrote

Given that the same Congress which voted on the First Amendment created had bibles printed, authorised chaplains, held weekly services in Congress, and declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate the Bill of Rights, I believe that they had a very different intention with the First Amendment than the one enshrined after 1954.

Looking responded
It has certainly been refined, but I think it is the same intention. Our visions of the Fourth and Fifth and Tenth amendments have also been refined. That is what two hundred and ten years of case law and history will do.
1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.
2. Teh 10th Ammendment has, until last year, been ignored since FDR bullied teh court into submitting to socialism.
3. CAse law has no Constitutional standing. It is a guild practice that has been illegally grafted onto Constituional studies. There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

And Congress still has chaplains.
The wall of seperateion is damn pourous by intent.

And we have a Thanksgiving Day every year.
Which is entirely different than having a special day to thang God for a specific event. What we hVe to day is a secular holiday commemorating the Puritan colonization.

And we subsidize the printing of Bibles by tax-exempt churches.
Compare taht to Congress authorising funds to purchase bibles and proselytise to the Indians!

It seems to me that the Reynolds case was legitimate and teh 1954 case on religion in schools was not.

Are you saying that the Reynolds Court was correct to use the Danbury Baptist letter as a guide? But that the 1954 court was wrong to use Reynolds as a precedent? And what 1954 case are you referring to?
I am saying that the Court in the Reynolds case did not misuse the Danbury letter, which is but one solitary opinion, to reshape the Consitution to their agenda. In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

I would also note that nowhere in the Constituion is teh Supreme Court called teh final arbirter of the Consitution. In fact, Congress has the explicit right to take issues out of the range of the USSC.

Ever since Marbury Congresses, Presidents, and the rest of the government have all acknowldeged the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Even inferior courts make constitutional decisions, following USSC precedents.
Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.
At any rate, the fairlure of the government to address an assault on the Constitution does not validate it.
The USSC was supposed to be the weakest branch (read teh Federalist Papers) instead the judicial system has become an oligarchy.

141 posted on 09/09/2002 6:37:03 PM PDT by rmlew

To: Looking for Diogenes

You are the one that keeps missing the point. You just don't get it.Maybe you better look again. You don't understand America and why it has succeeded.The settlers wanted the govt.out of religion not religion out of the govt.The reliance on God's law has made this country unique among nations.The United States is the only country I know of that has stated that our rights are from the laws of God.The first words out of the mouth of George Washington was a prayer that God had a hand in the formation of this country.

142 posted on 09/09/2002 7:03:47 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

Bookmarked. I have hours of reading to do. Thanks for the link--I think. :)

143 posted on 09/09/2002 7:10:47 PM PDT by Samwise

To: Enemy Of The State

You aren't going to make the rules buddy.If you don't like the way our public institutions are run, if there is too much God around for you then remove yourself.People are not going to keep giving into you just because you find the public display of affection for God vulgar.We don't have to change because there is a MINORITY that wants to shove their opinion on the majority.Now I am sure you are a great supporter of the ACLU. Fine, I know the ACLU has deep pockets and because of this they have shoved a lot of people around.It is a new day. They have challengers now and the ACLU has been losing.Get used to it.

144 posted on 09/09/2002 7:18:04 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

I don't know, I think I hit your problem right on the head.You have made numerous hostile posts.Hostility is not a matter of the mind but of the spirit.A psychiatrist would have wasted your time.
Have a blessed life!

145 posted on 09/09/2002 7:25:11 PM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

There you go again with your non hostile reply. You know I ought to report you for abuse but I wont.You are the one that posted the article. Why? Since you posted this article should we conclude that you agree with the prominence of the Judeo/Christian influence in America. You have made crack after crack about Christianity. Apparently,you go into a rage when you hear the word Christian. No-one convinces anyone of the reality of Jesus Christ. The holy-spirit does that. Yes thankfully,in spite of everything Jesus loves me.I haven't earned it nor do I deserve it. He loves all of mankind,no matter who they are. Jesus loves you too.

147 posted on 09/09/2002 9:35:03 PM PDT by moteineye

Well Ron, you seem to take the words "public square" quite literally. In fact, you're view of sppech in general is quite narrow and seemingly reserved to oral recitation on a soapbox in a park with pigeons. :-)

But, I'm going to prove to you that a school is the public square.

Students in any public school in America can wear jewlery, t-shirts or any other acceptable clothing advertising their religious convictions. They can pray in the hallway, they can proselytise between class and they can sing hymns under the flag pole if they so desire. All of these are speech Ron and it can be Constitutionally exercised in the public square, ie; schools.

Do you think the state can tell me that I can't wear my crucifx around my neck in federal buildings?

148 posted on 09/09/2002 9:50:09 PM PDT by jwalsh07

Nope. The DOI says what it says.

The Pledge of Allegiance says what it says and whats more the SCOTUS has ruled that nobody can be forced to say it. Therefore, those that do say it do so voluntarily and those that wish to omit the words "under God" may do that as well. I don't have a problem with that, why do you have a problem with those of us who prefer to say it?

149 posted on 09/09/2002 9:54:45 PM PDT by jwalsh07

1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.

Sandra O'Connor is a leftist?

The point of citing the Danbury Baptist letter is to try to understand original intent.

There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

A couple of sentences ago you were complaining about novel approaches and revisionism. Now you're saying that's OK. Make up your mind.

In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

Oh yeah? And what case was that? No to be unfriendly, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.

First, his impeachment had nothing to doing with Marbury v Madison. It had to do with enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Act. Second, he was impeached by the House, but not by the Senate. The Senate has 'almost' done many things. 'Almost' doesn't count for much.

150 posted on 09/09/2002 10:48:06 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes

awww..thanks..now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside :-)

151 posted on 09/10/2002 4:34:05 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State

To: Enemy Of The State

You have such a button. I can't resist Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian,Christian
A xanax might help. LOL :)

154 posted on 09/10/2002 6:38:34 AM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

155 posted on 09/10/2002 6:41:02 AM PDT by moteineye

To: Enemy Of The State

156 posted on 09/10/2002 7:04:30 AM PDT by garv

I prefer eagles. But, no, I also think that the press and the airwaves are also part of the public square. When students wear jewelry (such as a crucifix), clothing, etc., denoting their membership in a particular religious community, on their own or their parent's direction, they are expressing their own beliefs in their own way, and one that does not impose or disrupt (despite what any atheist may say). The government is not telling them what type of religion is acceptable or admirable, etc. But when prayers are led by a teacher, or led by a student under the direction of a teacher, then the government is saying, "You should pray, and this is how". That's unacceptable to me, and apparently to the law.

I wouldn't think there's a problem with any of the other activities you mention, except perhaps with proselytizing other students. That last has the potential to be intrusive, depending on the methods, etc., used. Praying in the hallway is O.K. as long as they don't block it, or block access to some kid's locker.

157 posted on 09/10/2002 7:25:42 AM PDT by RonF

To: Looking for Diogenes

Did the Supremes ban school-led prayer in the '50's? I distinctly remember leading my classmates in prayer in the early '60's when I was in grade school. Of course, in my old home town we were very diverse; we had both Catholics and Protestants.

158 posted on 09/10/2002 7:27:47 AM PDT by RonF

To: hoosierskypilot

That's a far cry from what we've got, where children are forbidden from prayer, Bible reading, etc., on school grounds.

I was unaware that children are forbidden from doing any of these things. I do believe that the teachers are forbidden to lead them, or supervise them in being led, in such activities, but that's different from what you've said.

159 posted on 09/10/2002 7:38:47 AM PDT by RonF

I don't recall having discussed this matter here. On what basis do you say that I have a problem with those who prefer to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance?

160 posted on 09/10/2002 7:43:36 AM PDT by RonF

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794